Gis and the Prehistoric Landscape
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GIS AND THE PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE: AN EXAMINATION OF APPLICABILITY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE BY DEBRA K. HOLLON DR. MATTHEW W. WILSON (ADVISOR) BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA MAY 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the individuals without whom this thesis would not have been possible - - to my advisor, Dr. Matthew Wilson, for his encouragement, guidance, and infinite patience; to my committee members, Dr. Kevin Turcotte and Dr. Mark Hill, for their advice and expertise; to Mr. Joe LoPilato for his support and free-run of the computer lab; and to the many individuals and organizations which gave me suggestions, information, or datasets. I would also like to thank my mother and the rest of my family for their encouragement and understanding and to acknowledge my father, who, though not with me for this journey, was a constant source reassurance no matter where I was headed. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . i List of Tables . iv Ch. I – Introduction . 1 Ch. II – Literature Review . 5 Ch. III – Case Study: Middle Mississippian Exchange – Background . 13 Ch. IV – Case Study: Middle Mississippian Exchange – Model . 29 Ch. V – Case Study: Middle Mississippian Exchange – Results . 51 Ch. VI – Discussion . 73 Ch. VII – Conclusion . 83 Appendix: Work Flow Diagram . 87 References . 89 LIST OF FIGURES 3-1 – Platform Mound . 16 3-2 – Ramey Incised Pot . 17 3-3 – Powell Plain Pot . 17 3-4 – Birger Figurine . 18 3-5 – Mill Creek Chert Hoe . 19 3-6 – Location of Eveland/Dickson Mounds Site . 20 3-7 – Location of Angel Mounds Site . 21 3-8 – Location of Aztalan Site . 22 3-9 – Location of Red Wing Locality . 23 3-10 – Location of Mill Creek Locality . 24 3-11 – Location of Mill Creek Chert Source . 25 3-12 – Location of Flint Clay Source . 26 3-13 – Location of Copper Source . 27 4-1 – Study Area . 30 4-2 – Vector Representation of Land Cover Data . .31 4-3 – Raster Representation of Land Cover Data . 31 4-4 – Cost Distance Surface . 49 4-5 – Cost Direction Surface . .49 4-6 – Least Cost Path . 50 5-1 – Least Cost Paths Centering on Cahokia . 52 5-2 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Eveland/Dickson Mounds-Small Scale . 53 i 5-3 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Eveland/Dickson Mounds-Large Scale . 54 5-4 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Angel-Small Scale . 55 5-5 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Angel-Large Scale . 56 5-6 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Angel Including Raster File in Yellow . 56 5-7 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Aztalan-Small Scale . 57 5-8 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Aztalan-Large Scale . 57 5-9 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Aztalan Including Raster File in Yellow . 59 5-10 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Aztalan Including Raster File in Yellow and Hydrography Cost Surface in Orange . 59 5-11 – Revised Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Aztalan Including Raster File in Yellow and Hydrography Cost Surface in Orange . 59 5-12 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Red Wing Locality-Small Scale . .60 5-13 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Red Wing Locality-Large Scale . .61 5-14 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Red Wing Locality Including Total Cost Surface Revealing Areas of “No Data” in Green . .61 5-15 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Mill Creek Locality-Small Scale . 62 5-16 – Least Cost Path from Cahokia to Mill Creek Locality-Large Scale . .63 5-17 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Flint Clay to Cahokia-Small Scale . 65 5-18 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Flint Clay to Cahokia-Large Scale . 66 5-19 – Least Cost Path from Source of Flint Clay to Cahokia with Slope Background . .66 5-20 – Least Cost Path from the Source of Mill Creek Chert to Cahokia-Small Scale . 67 5-21 – Least Cost Path from the Source of Mill Creek Chert to Cahokia-Large Scale . 67 5-22 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia-Small Scale . 68 ii 5-23 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia with Slope Background . 68 5-24 – Location of Copper Source . 69 5-25 – Least Cost Path from Second Copper Source Location to Cahokia . 69 5-26 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia-Large Scale . 70 5-27 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia with Lake Raster File in Black . .70 5-28 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia-Flambeau River . 71 5-29 – Least Cost Path from a Source of Copper to Cahokia with River Raster File in Yellow . 71 6-1 – Difference in Datasets at Confluence of Mississippi and Wisconsin Rivers . 77 6-2 – Difference between Vector and Raster Versions of Ohio River . .79 6-3 – Flambeau River-Evidence of Vector to Raster Conversion Variables Enlarging River . 80 iii LIST OF TABLES 4-1 – Listing of Cost Surface Data . 33 4-2 – Cost Surface Weights . 40 4-3 – Listing of Archaeological Sites . 47 4-4 – Listing of Source Materials Found at Cahokia . 48 7-1 – Issues Impacting Applicability of GIS for Examining Prehistoric Landscapes . 85 iv Chapter I Introduction Can a geographic information system (GIS), which relies on known geographic data as the input for analysis, be used to examine prehistoric landscapes where the geographic data are unknown? The use of GIS in historical studies has become more prevalent in the past decade. Researchers from different disciplines, such as historical geographers and archaeologists, are utilizing the technology to investigate such topics as agricultural patterns, demographic changes, landscape visibility, and human movement through a landscape (Conolly & Lake 2006; Gregory & Ell, 2007; Knowles 2000; McCoy & Ladefoged 2009). Data such as archival maps, census records, and terrain information are used as the input for the GIS. There are difficulties, however, when studying prehistoric landscapes using a GIS. Issues such as the availability and accuracy of the data, landscape changes since the time period under study, and even general concurrence on the geographic location of the site in question must be considered. The application of GIS to study prehistoric landscapes is dependent upon the type of landscapes studied. The large floodplain across the Mississippi River from modern-day St. Louis was the setting for the largest prehistoric urban area on the North American continent north of Mexico (Fowler 1974; Hall 1991; Pauketat & Emerson 1997). The residents of what we refer to as Cahokia were able to utilize a wealth of natural resources, favorable agricultural conditions, and a location near the confluence of three major rivers to create a civilization whose influence at its peak (AD 1050-1275) stretched across the whole of the midcontinent. Artifacts characteristic of Cahokia (or imitations of those styles) have been found from Oklahoma to Minnesota to Tennessee. This exchange network served as a case study for the applicability of using GIS on a prehistoric landscape. This study consists of six sections. First is review of the relevant literature on movement and mobility, cultural geography, historical GIS, and the use of GIS in archaeology. Secondly, the model used for this case study is discussed. A least cost path analysis was conducted in an effort to visualize travel routes between Cahokia and other sites. It should be noted that this model is simply one way of examining the applicability of GIS to prehistoric landscapes and is not meant to preclude other approaches to assessing applicability. The third element of this thesis provides a background of Cahokia, the artifacts and features which are significant to the identification of a Middle Mississippian site, and the archaeological sites utilized in the model. Next is a discussion of the results generated by the model for each least cost path. Fifth is a discussion of the overall findings of the research. Finally, conclusions are drawn concerning GIS and prehistoric landscapes. 2 This case study of Middle Mississippian exchange illustrated some of the issues and limitations involved when a GIS is utilized to examine a prehistoric landscape. An understanding of these limitations is the key to GIS’s applicability. The scope of any individual project will dictate whether GIS is applicable for that project. 3 Chapter II Literature Review Mobility is not just a synonym for movement. Within the discipline of geography, it is the combination of movement and the situation, meaning, and context in which that movement takes place (Adey 2010; Cresswell 2001). Through context and meaning, geographers point to factors such as the landscape through which the movement takes place, its purpose, the significance placed on that movement by society, and how other cultures interpret it. It is the context, the answer to the “why” question, that makes understanding and interpreting mobility possible. Discussions of mobility are often couched in terms of sedentism and nomadism (Adey 2010). People and cultures which tend toward sedentism focus on the meaning of place to the exclusion of the space in between those places. Nomadism reflects people and cultures which value the space and movement between the places. This is not simply a discussion of nomadic and sedentary cultures in terms of their subsistence practices such as hunter/gatherers or agriculturists. Rather, it is a function of the world- view of that person or culture and placing more value on either place or space. These two world views also provide substance for critical theoretical approaches as well as social and political movements (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987)..