Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories

Verhagen, Philip

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_2

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering material records in terms of an archaeology of potentials, one in which the archaeological record of the present is the emergent outcome of historically and geographically contingent processes, will aid in characterizing that uncertainty. Such an approach benefits from the affordances of an eclectic range of geocomputational methods (Verhagen 2018). Combining GIS and ABM offers archaeologists working in both academic and professional spheres a toolkit for investigating spatial processes that contribute to the dynamics of potential pasts and their material residues in the present.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Models in Archaeology: Part 2 of 3

Davies¹,

Romanowska²,

Harris³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeologists are using spatial data in increasingly sophisticated analyses and invoking more explicit considerations of space in their interpretations. Geographic information systems (GIS) have become standard technology for professional archaeologists in the collection and management of spatial data. Many calls have been made to develop and adapt digital geospatial technologies for interpretation and understanding past social dynamics, but this has been limited to some extent by the static nature of map-oriented GIS approaches. Here, we illustrate how coupling GIS with agent-based modeling (ABM) can assist with more dynamic explorations of past uses of space and geospatial phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Models in Archaeology: Part 2 of 3

Davies¹,

Romanowska²,

Harris³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, spatial analysis using geographic information systems (GIS), for example, is inherent to archaeology, geology, geomatics, geoarchaeology, digital geoarchaeology, as well as digital archaeology (e.g. Djindjian, 1998;Verhagen, 2017;Zubrow, 2006, pp. 16-21).…”

Section: Digital Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Hagmann¹

2018

IANSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study concerning the use of the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate as an integrated tool for digital science communication in archaeology. Although this combination seems to be characterised by means of a distinct heterogeneity among the different SNS, the interlocking of the various sites will be highlighted and its importance outlined. Therefore, the basic workflow for combining a microblogging service with a 3D content sharing site and a scientific social network shall be delineated within the framework of science communication. Disseminating data digitally can be handled in different ways, both actively and passively. An active manner can be the triggering of a social media war: in general, war might be seen here as permanent adversity between at least two parties. This adversity can arise for various reasons and take different courses on different intensity levels (Kekes 2010). Expanding the meaning of war to include digital conflicts within the realm of information and computer science, this permanent adversity can be easily combined with social media, specifically the social web, as an integral part of Web 2.0 (e.g.

show abstract

“…However, archeological applications have been different in that they tend to focus on the experiential aspect of visibility (Verhagen 2018). That is, visibility is interpreted as a cognitive and perceptual phenomenon through which a human agent makes sense of the space (Llobera 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscapes shared by visibility: a case study on the settlement relationships of the Songgukri culture, Korea

Kim

Bone

Lee

2020

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Songgukri culture (c. 2900-2400 cal. BP) in the Geum River basin is often regarded as one of the earliest complex societies in the Korean peninsula, based on some evidence for an intensified agrarian economy and social differentiation. This study focuses on landscape visibility as a method of detecting settlement relationships of the Songgukri culture. Two measures of landscape visibility, viewshed size and shared-ness of viewshed (SoV), are examined in this study. Our results indicate that while Songgukri centers tend to have larger visibility of landscape than non-centers, both centers and non-centers share their visible landscape with other settlements at a remarkably high rate. We argue that landscape visibility at Songgukri settlements reflects a shared sense of cultural belonging among settlers, rather than sociopolitical inequality between the elites in centers and the nonelites in other settlements. This study highlights a long-term process, in which bottom-up cultural interactions of Songgukri residents may have contributed to the development of settlement organization and regional communal identities over time.

show abstract

Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories

Cited by 54 publications

References 36 publications

Combining Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Models in Archaeology: Part 2 of 3

Combining Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Models in Archaeology: Part 2 of 3

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Landscapes shared by visibility: a case study on the settlement relationships of the Songgukri culture, Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About