PIA Volume 21 (2011), 80-90 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.381

Advancing Theory? and Geographical Information Systems Di Hu*

This paper will focus on how Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have been applied in from the late 1980s to the present. GIS, a tool for organising and analysing spatial information, has exploded in popularity, but we still lack a systematic overview of how it has contributed to , specifically Landscape Archaeology. This paper will examine whether and how GIS has advanced archaeological theory through a historical review of its application in archaeology.

Introduction ularity during the 1960s and 1970s at the Despite the increase in popularity of GIS height of the New Archaeology movement in archaeology in the past decade, there (Bintliff 1996: 246). Landscape Archaeology is still a rift between those who are enthu- can be broadly defined as the study of cul- siastic about its promise to advance theory tural and environmental variables influenc- and those who believe that GIS is mainly a ing the way humans interacted with their map-making tool that does not warrant this landscape (Yamin and Bescherer 1996; David high level of enthusiasm. Through a histori- and Lourandos 1999; Ingold 1993). cal treatment of the development of GIS in Despite its great popularity, defining what Landscape Archaeology, this paper seeks to Landscape Archaeology is and has been is evaluate the contributions to theory made by contentious. On a practical level, Landscape GIS applications in Landscape Archaeology. Archaeology is the study of “diffuse” human Has the use of GIS generated new theory? remains or the cultural spaces “between the Have the practical limitations of GIS preju- sites” (Knapp and Ashmore 1999: 2). From a diced its potential to generate archaeological theoretical standpoint, however, ‘landscape’ theory? This paper will argue that while GIS remains difficult to define clearly because cannot be credited with the emergence of there are different conceptions of space and innovations in spatial analysis, such theoreti- thus what a landscape is (Witcher 1999). cal innovations are enriched through testing The two main definitions of ‘landscape’ can with the aid of GIS. be characterised as ‘scientific/abstract’ and ‘humanised’ (Tilley 1994). The first defini- Definitions of Landscape Archaeology tion sees landscape as quantifiable, univer- sal, objective, neutral, a-temporal, static and Landscape Archaeology has played an ever absolute (among other things), whereas the more important role in understanding the second definition sees landscape as qualita- past since the 1920s, and enjoyed great pop- tive, experienced, contextual, relative, tem- poral and dynamic (Tilley 1994: 14). This latter definition of landscape, as summed up * University of California, Berkeley Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 81

Fig 1: The ‘humanised’ landscape. by Ingold (1993), is “the world as it is known ologists tend to define “landscape” using to those who dwell therein, who inhabit its a combination of the two (Tilley 1994). For places and journey along the paths connect- example, Witcher emphasised that the sec- ing them.” Archaeologists who espouse this ond definition of “landscape” does not pre- second definition argue that space is not a clude the first: “Integral to such hermeneu- neutral receiver of human action but rather tic and phenomenological approaches has a meaningful medium for, and product of, been a de-quantification of space, permitting human action (Wheatley and Gillings 2002: landscape to be social and qualitative, as well 8). This definition of landscape treats space as economic and geometric” (Witcher 1999: as socially constructed, subjectively expe- 13-14). From the two definitions, one can rienced, and inextricably tied to multiple derive a view of landscape as the context in meanings at multiple times (Bender 1993: 3; which humans survive, cognise the world, Boaz and Uleberg 1995: 252; Green 1990b: act, and make meaning. 358; Hirsch 1995). Therefore, there is no Because the advent of the second under- ‘neutral’ space that researchers can abstract standing of landscape coincided with GIS from social life. Since the mid-1980s, this technological advances in the late 1980s and second definition has become much more early 1990s, most of the studies that aimed popular than the ‘scientific/abstract’ view to innovate methodologically often drew (Attema 1999: 23; Winterbottom and Long from some form of the second definition of 2006: 1356; Witcher 1999: 13-14). landscape. For that reason, this paper focuses However, as Tilley has observed, these two on studies that have attempted to under- conceptions of space and landscape are not stand past through the second mutually exclusive of each other, and archae- ‘humanised’ definition of space. 82 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS

What is Geographical Information ideal and versatile tool for the study of land- Systems (GIS)? scapes (Gillings and Mattingly 1999). GIS was Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is a used almost immediately by archaeologists set of computer tools for making and ana- as soon as the tools were available. In fact, lysing spatial information (Bolstad 2005: the case studies in the highly influential vol- 1). While all of the fundamentals of spatial ume Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology analysis methods pre-date computer appli- all dealt with landscape (Allen et al. 1990). cations, the advantage of a GIS is its ability In the volume’s introduction, Green argued to compute thousands of complex spatial that only landscape-based archaeological relationships from data, something impos- approaches could fully take advantage of the sible with traditional maps. In a GIS, data capabilities that GIS has to offer as well as can be computed from a ‘raster’ or a ‘vec- advance archaeological theory (Green 1990b: tor’ model, and layers of vectors and rasters 5). Whether or not only landscape-based can be overlaid, giving even more power in approaches could fully take advantage of GIS computing spatial relationships (Aldender- is debatable, but there is a general consen- fer 1996: 4). ‘Vector’ models employ points, sus that GIS is a very powerful tool to study lines, and areas to represent spatial data, landscapes because of its ability simultane- and are good for non-continuous data like ously to analyse space, time, and form (Green boundaries or representing spatial relation- 1990b: 356). ships in the form of topology. ‘Raster’ mod- In addition to analysing the environmen- els are based on small square cells and are tal and economic factors in change, better for representing more continuous or Wheatley argued that GIS was ideal for ana- mixed data, such as frequencies of artefacts, lysing social and ritual landscapes because terrain, and distributions of people (Bolstad one could test different proxies for visual 2005: 33-49). Vector and raster models are perception (Wheatley 1993; 1996). Wheat- easily interchangeable. Because data can be ley also argued that GIS can help research- represented in layers, spatial data over time ers explore social organisation more contex- can be easily analysed, with each layer rep- tually (spatially) instead of using terms like resenting a period in time, not unlike tradi- “chiefdoms” that are ambiguously defined tional archaeological stratigraphy (Allen et al. (Wheatley 1996: 76-77). Wheatley’s argu- 1990). GIS software can help researchers see ment for using GIS to explore social organisa- the contingent effects of many factors over tion came after Crumley’s influential article space and time, which gives it a big advan- about using multi-scalar approaches to study tage over static maps (Bolstad 2005). social organisations and landscapes (Crum- Scale is also less of an issue in GIS because ley 1995). Llobera argued that GIS could be one can analyse different types of spatial used to study social space and meaning from data (for example, artefact distributions at more practice-based approaches (Llobera a single site alongside the inter-visibility of 1996; for a more detailed review of the capa- sites) using one single dataset. The continu- bilities of GIS and how it relates to questions ity of scale and integration of statistical and that researchers attempted to answer, see spatial programmes afforded by GIS there- Kvamme 1999). fore make it ideal for Landscape Archaeology GIS can be used not only to help answer (Aldenderfer 1996; Daly and Lock 2004). archaeological and anthropological ques- tions, but also to help us approach such Applicability of GIS in questions in a multi-scalar way (Daly and Landscape Archaeology Lock 2004). This is especially useful because Because GIS organises spatial data and inte- Trifkovic described how many of the prob- grates tools to analyse spatial data, it is an lems plaguing Landscape Archaeology have Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 83 to do with the tension between the molecular (e.g., Bevan and Conolly 2002 on ‘site’ defini- (individualised) and global scales of agency- tion), it is not clear whether GIS can advance landscape relationships (Trifkovic 2003: 2-3). higher levels of theory. Is the optimism Daly and Lock also maintained that GIS data- expressed by such archaeologists about GIS bases of and excavation data avoid the advancing archaeological and anthropologi- de-contextualisation of archaeological mate- cal theory unwarranted? rial common among specialists (Daly and On one hand, the methods often associ- Lock 2004). ated with GIS existed pre-GIS, and applica- tions of theory in GIS reflect wider theo- Has the Use of GIS Generated New retical debates. For example, the GIS-based Theory? cumulative viewshed analysis developed by Despite the applicability of GIS in archaeol- Wheatley was methodologically identical to ogy, Lake and Woodman showed how GIS Renfrew’s 1979 analysis of the viewsheds of analyses of visibility have recapitulated pre- Rousay cairns in which he overlaid the views- GIS methods (Lake and Woodman 2003: 692). hed of each cairn to show the areas of overlap This leads us to the question of whether GIS (Wheatley 1996; Renfrew 1979). Similarly, is merely a new, albeit more precise and effi- non-Euclidean distance maps had already cient, way of doing old things, or whether it is been calculated pre-GIS to reflect more real- a methodology that can advance archaeolog- istic site catchments (Ericson and Goldstein ical theory (Lock and Harris 1997). This pre- 1980) and cost distance maps based on travel occupation has spurred many archaeologists times (Gorenflo and Gale 1990). to find ways to use GIS to advance archaeo- Archaeological analyses using GIS also logical theory, most notably in the areas of tended to reflect rather than generate theo- cognition, ritual, and viewshed analysis (e.g., retical developments. After the publication Wheatley 1993; Llobera 1996; Ruggles et al. of key books addressing , memory 1993). Wheatley considered that some views and practice, and perception in landscape of GIS as “theoretically neutral” were unten- archaeological theory (i.e. Bender 1993; able because other technological advances, Bradley 1994; Ingold 1993; Renfrew 1994; such as carbon-14 dating, had influenced and Tilley 1994), there was an explosion of archaeological theory greatly (Wheatley GIS applications of such theories (e.g., Rug- 1993: 133). Maschner argued that investigat- gles et al. 1996). These advances in landscape ing how humans perceive landscapes might archaeological theory, however, did not be one of the biggest future contributions result from insights gained from previous to social science (Maschner 1996b: 305). GIS applications in Landscape Archaeology. Other authors were also optimistic about GIS Rather, the advances were inspired by and advancing archaeological and social theory were part of the milieu of the proliferation (Attema 1999; Wise 2000; Witcher 1999). of various post-structuralist, post-positivist, Maschner argued that GIS use in archaeol- and post-modernist social theories of prac- ogy can become more sophisticated through tice (i.e. Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984) and an increase in the number of archaeologists phenomenology (i.e. Gosden 1994; Thomas incorporating it into their research agendas 1993). The different theories employed in (Maschner 1996b: 302). More recently, Ver- GIS-based archaeological analyses had less to hagen and Whitley have proposed ways of do with the practical capabilities of GIS and making generally a-theoretical predictive more to do with the theoretical leanings and modelling relevant in theory and model inspirations of the practitioners (Lake and formulation (Verhagen and Whitley 2011). Woodman 2003: 692-693). While there is no doubt that GIS can advance For example, when there was a shift away our understanding of middle range theory from environmental functionalism in the 84 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS

early 1990s, practitioners of GIS in archaeol- movement, visual concealment, aspects of ogy debated two ways of moving away from landscape perception in general, are pursued environmental determinism: one trying to in a very simplistic manner” (Llobera 2001: look at cognition and the other trying to 1006). understand human practices and meaning Llobera and Daly and Lock advocated that through analysis using a structuration and researchers should instead use a structura- practice theory approach. Zubrow (1994), tionist approach (Llobera 1996; 2001; Daly Gaffney et al. (1995), Wheatley (1993; 1996), and Lock 2004). Rather than focusing on and Stead (1995) believed that GIS could cognition, this approach focussed on how help archaeologists at least approximate the the landscape can structure and character- ancient cognition of landscape. Maschner ise cultural practices. In this way, both space (1996b: 305) was especially optimistic about and humans can be considered active agents GIS’s role in advancing understanding of in the constitution of society (Lock 2001). human cognition: “The investigation of how Llobera especially made use of work by Gid- humans perceive landscapes may be one of dens and Gibson to flesh out a GIS method- our most important future contributions.” ology focusing on the social space on the The interest in cognition, viewsheds, and landscape over time to study past human ritual did not wane with the coming of the meanings and practices, while Daly and Lock new millennium due to ongoing theoreti- draw from Gosden and Tilley (Giddens 1984; cal debates (e.g., Llobera 2003; 2007; Mack Gibson 1986; Gosden 1994; Tilley 1994). 2004; De Silva and Pizziolo 2005; Soetens et Despite these theoretical debates, and the al. 2005; Tschan et al. 2000). cleverness with which GIS applications were Baldwin et al., on the other hand, were used to utilise or test them, GIS approaches sceptical about these developments and to Landscape Archaeology never generated questioned how researchers could model new theory (e.g., Llobera 1996; Maschner modern, let alone ancient, cognition with 1996a; Wheatley 1996). Nevertheless, this uncritically-employed spatial-statistical tools does not mean that GIS is useless in the of GIS (Baldwin et al. 1996). Having admin- advancement of archaeological theory; Brad- istered surveys to modern respondents to ley’s study of Wessex linear ditches from the see how they cognised their landscape, the late Bronze Age suggested that such ditches researchers then made parameters from were territorial markers meant to be seen the survey data to find a method for mod- only from within their respective territories elling the different ways of perceiving the (Bradley 1994). However, through a visibil- landscape using GIS. The parameters turned ity analysis of the ditches, Llobera was able out to be very complex, and Baldwin et al. to prove using GIS that Bradley’s hypothesis inferred that mapping ancient cognition, was not true (Llobera 1996). Through his without the ability to survey people in the analysis of landscape orientations (aspect), past, would be exceedingly difficult. Flem- Llobera found that the ditches conform to ing argued that it is very difficult for archae- changes in landscape orientation and other ologists to be sure that their conceptions of topographical features (Llobera 1996: 218). how ancient cognition functioned are not Rather than demarcating territories through just flights of fancy (Fleming 1999; 2006). In visibility, Llobera was able to argue that the order to even begin to study cognition, one ditches are information markers of perme- needs to understand processes that are not able territories (Llobera 1996: 619-620). This even well understood in psychology. Because study was innovative because it generated a archaeologists do not have a detailed under- counter-theory with the aid of GIS. Such a standing of the fields of research required study would not have been possible without to address cognition, “interpretations about GIS because of the thousands of mathemati- Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 85 cal calculations of visibility and aspect (ori- sometimes overly optimistic, about the capa- entation) involved. Furthermore, studies like bilities of GIS, and most studies were done this one helped to advance debate by dem- without much regard to archaeological or onstrating how GIS can allow researchers to social theory. One of the more sophisticated test theory against different case studies. early GIS-based Landscape Archaeological So, whilst it is true that GIS has not gener- studies was Savage’s investigation of Late ated new theory and wholly new methods, Archaic landscapes (Savage 1990b). Savage nor steered the direction of wider theoreti- utilized Thiessen polygons to model subsist- cal debates, GIS has increased the inferential ence catchment areas and boundaries, and rigour of archaeological studies (Lake and his research was probably the first GIS-based Woodman 2003: 693). The advantage of GIS Landscape Archaeology study that explicitly is that it allows researchers to test hypoth- worked from archaeological theory. eses relatively quickly and establish spatial In the mid-to-late 1990s, the sophistication statistical significance (e.g., Armstrong et of GIS-based spatial analyses in Landscape al. 2009; Swanson 2003). However, I would archaeology and theoretical engagement argue that such inferential rigour is a neces- improved significantly. Software capability sary condition for theory generation but not coincidentally improved also, requiring users sufficient in itself. to have less programming knowledge. New studies were made practically possible by Practical Limitations of GIS advances in “line-of-sight (LOS, or viewshed) Although GIS-based Landscape Archaeology analysis, cost-surface generation, optimum has often been used to utilize and test theory, corridor selection, and watershed delinea- there are no clear examples of GIS directly tion on a user defined landscape” (Madry and generating new theory. Why is this the case? Rakos 1996: 104). During this period, crea- First, as Maschner (1996b: 302) noted, if tive uses of viewshed analysis (e.g., Gaffney more archaeologists were to incorporate GIS et al. 1996; Llobera 1996; Madry and Rakos into their research design, a relative increase 1996; Wheatley 1996) and creative uses of in the sophistication of analyses and, pre- predictive modelling (Maschner 1996a) were sumably, conclusions, could be expected. most often employed. Furthermore, during Therefore, there needs to be a critical mass this period, archaeologists began using GIS of people using GIS with theory generation to test theory (e.g., Llobera 1996). in mind before there is any likelihood of new After the late 1990s, the inferential rigour theories being generated. of GIS-based Landscape Archaeology stud- As GIS software became easier to use and ies improved yet again due to an increase in required less programming knowledge, the the use of spatial statistics, and the increas- use of GIS in Landscape Archaeology became ing availability of GIS software, as well as more theoretically engaged and methodo- improved ease of use, opened up the use of logically sophisticated. In the late 1980s and GIS to more people. Also, the theoretically- the early 1990s, the first wave of archaeo- laden debates surrounding GIS in the 1990s logical studies using GIS could mainly be generated widespread interest. Rather than grouped into those studies which provided using one or two GIS functions to solve predictive models to find site locations (for archaeological problems, an increase in Cultural Research Management), those stud- methodological complexity saw archaeolo- ies which examined the possibility of uses of gists combining functions to achieve com- GIS in archaeology, and those that focused plex analytic sequences (e.g., Armstrong et on the spatial relationship of humans and al. 2009; Bell et al. 2002; Swanson 2003; their environment (Savage 1990a). In this Whitley 2002, 2004). This trend of increas- early period, researchers were optimistic, ing sophistication in both method and theo- 86 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS

retical engagement was due to the increasing yses; it was theory, not GIS, that generated number of people using GIS, wider theoreti- widespread interest. cal debates generating interest in the capa- One of the most exciting trends of cur- bilities of GIS, and increasing software capa- rent GIS-based archaeological studies is the bilities. If this trend continues, we might movement toward understanding commonly expect GIS to directly contribute to the devel- used, but often vaguely applied, terms like opment of new theory in the future. “state,” “city,” “chiefdom,” “ritual space,” and The second reason why the use of GIS “empire.” Instead of defining each of these in Landscape Archaeology has not directly terms based on localised research and then generated theory is the limited availability trying to apply it universally, GIS can help us of user-friendly software that enables rapid approach each of these terms in an inductive Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA). To develop way (Exploratory Data Analysis) and under- software mainly for academic use is not stand the range of variation of social organi- profitable, and this has impeded the pace of sation and space. What is heartening about innovation in user-friendly GIS software. For this recent trend is that it has the potential example, only in the last ten years have the of empirically developing the post-structural spatial syntax theories of Hillier and Hanson idea of “overdetermination,” where there can (1984) been automated in software such as be multiple causes for a phenomenon, none Depthmap (Turner 2001) and Axialgen (Jiang of which are both necessary and sufficient and Liu 2010). Before then, generating iso- (Voss 2008: 4). The advantage of using GIS in vists (viewsheds) and axial lines was a cum- Landscape Archaeology is the ability to char- bersome process. Because GIS’s strength is in acterise rather than to categorise phenom- Exploratory Data Analysis (Maschner 1996b), ena. Therefore, by seeing the various spatial having access to intuitive software will manifestations of similar phenomena, for increase the number of users of GIS, and this example the rise of states, we can begin to in turn drive further sophistication in inferen- understand how their development is “over- tial rigour in analyses and more engagement determined.” In this way, GIS can help us with, and possibly generation of, theory. rigorously test our assumptions about social evolution. Conclusions: Future of GIS applications Because of the “overwhelming spatial- in Landscape Archaeology ity” of archaeological data (Conkey 1991), The purpose of the paper was to evaluate it is encouraging to see a recent increase in whether GIS has helped advance landscape integrative and theoretically-laden archaeo- and other archaeological theory. Some of logical GIS-based studies. If such a trend the overly-optimistic claims about how GIS continues, and more researchers learn GIS would easily generate new theory seem to methods, we can expect to see more commu- have been unfounded given the lack of clear nication between archaeological specialists positive precedents in theory generation. as well as with other disciplines, leading to GIS cannot generate theory; people do. The acceleration in the generation of theory. theories and methods had existed before GIS. However, GIS can, and indeed did, aid in the Acknowledgements advancement of archaeological theory. Spe- I would like to acknowledge M. Steven cifically, by testing theory with some degree Shackley for reading a draft of this paper and of statistical confidence, GIS helped research- Nicolas Tripcevich for conversations on GIS ers advance theoretical debates. However, in archaeology. The comments of an anony- the florescence of ideas, more than practical mous reviewer greatly improved the focus of advances in computation, was responsible this paper. I would also like to thank Adam for the increase in sophistication of GIS anal- Webb for help editing. Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 87

References Stancic, Z (eds.) Archaeology and Geographi- Aldenderfer, M 1996 Introduction. In: cal Information Systems: A European Perspec- Aldenderfer, M and Maschner, H (eds.) tive. London: Taylor and Francis, 249-59. Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Bolstad P 2005 GIS Fundamentals: A First Information Systems. New York, NY: Oxford Text on Geographic Information Systems. University Press, 3-18. White Bear Lake, Minnesota: Eider Press. Allen, K, Green, S, and Zubrow, E (eds.) 1990 Bourdieu, P 1977 Outline of a Theory of Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- London and New York: Taylor and Francis. sity Press. Armstrong, D, Hauser, M, Knight D, and Bradley, R 1994 Symbols and Signposts: Lenik, S 2009 Variation in Venues of Slav- Understanding the prehistoric petro- ery and Freedom: Interpreting the Late glyphs of the British Isles. In: Renfrew, C Eighteenth-Century Cultural Landscape and Zubrow, E (eds.) The Ancient Mind: of St. John, Danish West Indies Using an Elements of . Cam- Archaeological GIS. International Journal bridge: Cambridge University Press, of 13(1), 94-111, 95-106. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10761- Crumley, C 1995 Heterarchy and the Analy- 008-0066-6. sis of Complex Societies. Archaeological Attema, P 1999 Cartography and Landscape Papers of the American Anthropological Perception: A Case Study from Central Association 6(1), 1-5, DOI: http://dx.doi. Italy. In: Gillings, M, Mattingly, D, and org/10.1525/ap3a.1995.6.1.1. van Dalen, J (eds.) Geographical Informa- Daly, P and Lock, G 2004 Time, Space and tion Systems and Landscape Archaeology. Archaeological Landscapes: Establish- Oxford: The Alden Press, 23-34. ing Connections in the First Millennium Baldwin, J, Fisher, P, Wood, J, and Lang- BC. In: Goodchild, M and Janelle, D (eds.) ford, M 1996 Modelling Environmental Spatially Integrated Social Science. Oxford: Cognition of the View with GIS. Unpub- Oxford University Press, 349-65. lished paper. Leicester: University of David, B and Lourandos, H 1999 Landscape as Leicester Department of Geography. Mind: Land Use, Cultural Space and Change Bell, T, Wilson, A, and Wickham, A 2002 in North Queensland Prehistory. Quaternary Tracking the Samnites: Landscape and International 59, 107-23, DOI: http://dx.doi. Communications Routes in the Sangro org/10.1016/S1040-6182(98)00074-3. Valley, Italy. American Journal of Archaeol- De Silva, M and Pizziolo, G 2005 “Signs”, ogy 106(2), 169-86, http://www.jstor.org/ Place, Continuity and Changes: Investigat- stable/4126242. ing the “Landscape Perception” through Bender, B 1993 Landscape: Politics and Per- the Integration of Chronological and spectives. New York, NY: Berg Publishers. Typological Sources in the Tuscan Plains. Bevan, A and Conolly, J 2002 GIS, Archaeo- In: Forte, M (ed.) The Reconstruction of logical Survey, and Landscape Archaeol- Archaeological Landscapes Through Digi- ogy on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Jour- tal Technologies. Oxford: British Archaeo- nal of Field Archaeology 29(1/2), 123-38. logical Reports. Bintliff, J 1996 Interactions of Theory, Meth- Ericson, J and Goldsten, R 1980 Work odology and Practice. Archaeological Dia- Space: a new approach to the analysis of logues 2, 246-255, DOI: http://dx.doi. energy expenditure whithin site catch- org/10.1017/S1380203800000799. ments. In Findlow F J and Ericson J E (eds.) Boaz, J and Uleberg, E 1995 The Potential of Catchment Analysis: Essays on Prehistoric GIS-Based Studies of Iron Age Cultural Land- Resource Space. Los Angeles: University of scapes in Eastern Norway. In: Lock, G and California in Los Angeles Press, 21-30. 88 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS

Fleming, A 1999 Phenomenology and the space. Journal of Anthropological Archae- Megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming Too Far? ology 9, 240-274, DOI: http://dx.doi. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(2), 119- org/10.1016/0278-4165(90)90008-2. 25, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468- Hillier, B and Hanson, J 1984 The Social 0092.00074. Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge Fleming, A 2006 Post-Processual Land- University Press. scape Archaeology: A Critique. Cam- Ingold, T 1993 The Temporality of Land- bridge Archaeological Journal 16(3), scape. World Archaeology 25 (2), 152-74, 267-80, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824 S0959774306000163. 3.1993.9980235. Gaffney, V, Stancic, Z and Watson, H 1995 Jiang, B and Liu, X 2010 Automatic genera- The Impact of GIS on Archaeology: A Per- tion of the axial lines of urban environ- sonal Perspective. In: Lock, G and Stancic, ments to capture what we perceive. Interna- Z (eds.) Archaeology and Geographical tional Journal of Geographical Information Information Systems: A European Perspec- Science 24(4): 545, DOI: http://dx.doi. tive. London: Taylor and Francis, 210-30. org/10.1080/13658810902950351. Gaffney, V, Stancic, Z and Watson, H 1996 Knapp, A and Ashmore, W 1999 Archaeo- Moving from Catchments to Cognition: logical Landscapes; Constructed, Concep- Tentative Steps Toward a Larger Archaeo- tualized, Ideational. In: Knapp, A and Ash- logical Context for GIS. In: Aldenderfer, M more, W (eds.) Archaeologies of Landscape: and Maschner, H D G (eds.) Anthropology, Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Wiley- space and geographic information systems. Blackwell, 13-19. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. Kvamme, K 1999 Recent Directions and 132-54. Developments in Geographical Informa- Gibson, J 1986 The ecological approach to tion Systems. Journal of Archaeologi- visual perception. London: Erlbaum. cal Research 7(2), 153-201, DOI: http:// Giddens, A 1984 The Constitution of Society. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-005-0002-9. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Lake, M and Woodman, P 2003 Visibility California Press. Studies in Archaeology: A Review and Gillings, M and Mattingly, D 1999 Intro- Case Study. Environment and Planning B: duction. In: Gillings, M, Mattingly, D and Planning and Design, 30: 689-707, DOI: van Dalen, J (eds.) Geographical Informa- http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b29122. tion Systems and Landscape Archaeology. Llobera, M 1996 Exploring the Topography Oxford: The Alden Press, 1-4. of Mind: GIS, Social Space and Archaeol- Gosden, C 1994 Social Being and Time. ogy. Antiquity 70, 612-22. Oxford: Blackwell. Llobera, M 2001 Building Past Landscape Green, S 1990a Introduction. In: Allen, K, Perception With GIS: Understanding Top- Green, S and Zubrow, E (eds.) Interpreting ographic Prominence. Journal of Archaeo- Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: Tay- logical Science 28(9), 1005-14, DOI: http:// lor and Francis, 3-8. dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0720. Green, S 1990b Sorting Out Settlement in Llobera, M 2003 Extending GIS-based Visual Southeastern Ireland: Landscape Archae- Analysis: The Concept of Visualscapes. ology and Geographic Information Sys- International Journal of Geographical tems. In: Allen, K, Green, S, and Zubrow, Information Science 17(1), 25-48. E (eds.) Interpreting Space: GIS and Llobera, M 2007 Reconstructing Vis- Archaeology. London: Taylor and Francis, ual Landscapes. World Archaeol- 356-63. ogy 39(1), 51-69, DOI: http://dx.doi. Gorenflo, L J and Gale, N 1990 Map- org/10.1080/00438240601136496. ping regional settlement in information Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 89

Lock, G 2001 Theorising the Practice or Prac- using GIS and its Archaeological Applica- ticing the Theory: Archaeology and GIS. tion: A Case Study in Northern Mull. In: Archaeologia Polona 39, 153-64. Andersen, J, Madsen, T, and Scollar, I (eds.) Lock, G and Harris, T 1997 Analysing Computing the Past: Computer Applica- Change Through Time Within a Cultural tions and Quantitative Methods in Archae- Landscape: Conceptual and Functional ology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, Limitations of a GIS Approach. In: Sinclair, 125-31. P (ed.) Urban Origins in Eastern Africa. Savage, S 1989 Late Archaic Landscapes. World Archaeological Congress, One Columbia: South Carolina Institute of World series. Archaeology, University of South Carolina. Mack, A 2004 One Landscape, Many Experi- Savage, S 1990a Modelling the Late Archaic ences: Differing Perspectives of the Tem- Social Landscape. In: Allen, K, Green, S, ple Districts of Vijayanagara. Journal of and Zubrow, E (eds.) Interpreting Space: Archaeological Method and Theory 11(1), GIS and Archaeology. London: Taylor and 59-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ Francis, 330-55. B:JARM.0000014617.58744.1d. Savage, S 1990b GIS in Archaeologi- Madry, S and Rakos, L 1996 Line-of-sight cal Research. In: Allen, K, Green, S, and and Cost Surface Analysis for Regional Zubrow, E (eds.) Interpreting Space: GIS Research in the Arroux River Valley. In and Archaeology. London: Taylor and Fran- Maschner, H (ed.) New Methods, Old Prob- cis, 22-32. lems: Geographic Information Systems in Soetens, S, Sarris, A, Vansteenhuyse, K Modern Archaeological Research. Occa- and Topouzi, S 2005 GIS Variations on sional Paper 23. Carbondale: Center for a Cretan Theme: Minoan Peak Sanctuar- Archaeological Investigations, 104-26. ies. In: Foster, K P and Laffineur, R (eds.) Maschner, H 1996a The Politics of Settle- Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze ment Choice on the Northwest Coast: Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Cognition, GIS and Coastal Landscapes . Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale Uni- In: Aldenderfer, M and Maschner, H (eds.) versity, 18–21 April 2002, 483–9. Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Stead, S 1995 Humans and PETS in Space. In: Information Systems. New York, NY: Oxford Lock, G and Stancic, Z (eds.) Archaeology University Press, 175-89. and Geographical Information Systems: A Maschner, H 1996b Theory, Technology, and European Perspective. London: Taylor and the Future of Geographic Information Sys- Francis, 313-18. tems in Archaeology. In Maschner, H (ed.) Swanson, S 2003 Documenting Prehistoric New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Communication Networks: A Case Study Information Systems in Modern Archaeo- in the Paquimé Polity. American Antiquity logical Research. Occasional Paper 23. Car- 68(4), 753-767, http://www.jstor.org/sta- bondale: Center for Archaeological Inves- ble/3557071. tigations, 301-06. Thomas, J 1993 The Hermeneutics of Mega- Renfrew, C 1979 Investigations in Orkney. lithic Space. In Tilley, C (ed.) Interpretative London: Society of Antiquaries of London Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, 73-97. Research Report no. 38. Tilley, C 1994 A Phenomenology of Land- Renfrew, C 1994 Towards a Cognitive Archae- scape: Places, Paths and Monuments. ology. In: Renfrew, C (ed.) The Ancient Oxford: Berg. Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Trifkovic, V 2006 Persons and Landscapes: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Shifting Scales of Landscape Archaeol- 3-12. ogy. In Lock, G and Molyneaux, B (eds.) Ruggles, C, Medyckyj-Scott, D and Gruff- Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of ydd, A 1993 Multiple viewshed analysis 90 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS

Theory and Practice. New York: Springer, Wheatley, D and Gillings, M 2002 Spatial 257-271. Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeo- Tschan, P, Raczkowski, W and Latalowa, M logical Applications of GIS. Oxford: Taylor 2000 Perception and Viewsheds: Are They and Francis. Mutually Inclusive. In Lock, G (ed.) Beyond Whitley, T 2002 Landscapes of Bondage: the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technolo- Using GIS to Understand Risk Manage- gies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 28–48. ment and Cognitive Spatial Dynamics in a Turner A 2001 Depthmap: a program to per- Slave Society. Paper prepared for the Com- form visibility graph analysis. In Peponis, puter Applications in Archaeology 2002 J, Wineman, J and Bafna, S (eds.) Proceed- Conference, Heraklion, Greece, April 2-6, ings of the, Third International Symposium 2002 on Space Syntax, Atlanta 2001 31.1-31.9. Whitley, T 2004 Spatial Variables as Prox- The Bartlett Graduate School, University ies for Modeling Cognition and Decision- College London. Making in Archaeological Settings: A The- Verhagen, P and Whitley, T 2011 Integrat- oretical Perspective. Internet Archaeology ing Archaeological Theory and Predictive 16. Modeling: A Live Report from the Scene. Winterbottom, S and Long, D 2006 From Journal of Archaeological Method and Abstract Digital Models to Rich Virtual Envi- Theory, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ ronments: Landscape Contexts in Kilmar- s10816-011-9102-7. tin Glen, Scotland. Journal of Archaeologi- Wheatley, D 1993 Going Over Old Ground: cal Science 33(10), 1356-67, DOI: http:// GIS, Archaeological Theory and the Act dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.014. of Perception. In: Andersen, J, Madsen, T. Wise, A 2000 Building Theory into GIS-based and Scollar, I (eds.) Computing the Past: Landscape Analysis. In Lockyear, K, Sly, T, Computer Applications and Quantitative and Mihilescu-Birliba, V (eds.) Computer Methods in Archaeology. Aarhus: Aarhus Applications and Quantitative Methods in University Press, 133-138. Archaeology. BAR International Series 845. Wheatley, D 1995 Cumulative Viewshed Oxford: Archaeopress, 141–49. Analysis: A GIS-based Method for Investi- Witcher, R 1999 GIS and Landscapes of Per- gating Intervisibility, and its Archaeologi- ception. In: Gillings, M, Mattingly, D, and cal Application. In: Lock, G and Stancic, Z van Dalen, J (eds.) Geographical Informa- (eds.) Archaeology and Geographical Infor- tion Systems and Landscape Archaeology. mation Systems: A European Perspective. Oxford: The Alden Press, 13-22. London: Taylor and Francis, 171-85. Yamin, R and Bescherer Metheny, K (eds.) Wheatley, D 1996 The Use of GIS to Under- 1996 Landscape Archaeology: Reading and stand Regional Variation in Earlier Neo- Interpreting the American Historical Land- lithic Wessex. In Maschner, H (ed.) New scape. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Infor- Press. mation Systems in Modern Archaeological Zubrow, E 1994 Knowledge Representation Research. Occasional Paper 23. Carbon- and Archaeology: A Cognitive Example dale: Center for Archaeological Investiga- Using GIS. In: Renfrew, C and Zubrow, E tions, 75-103. (eds.) The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cog- Wheatley, D and Gillings, M 2000 Vision, nitive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched University Press, 107–18. Approaches to the Study of Archaeologi- cal Visibility. In Lock, G (ed.) Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technolo- gies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1-27.