Applications of Archaeological GIS

Author(s): David Ebert

Source: Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d'Archéologie , 2004, Vol.
28, No. 2 (2004), pp. 319-341
Published by: Canadian Archaeological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41103496

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41103496?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Canadian Archaeological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d'Archéologie

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Applications of Archaeological GIS
David Ebert*

Abstract. The use of Geographic Infor- result, archaeologists tend to interpret

mation Systems (GIS) in archaeology seems human behaviour and material culture
like a perfect match of technology and
in a geographic context. However, the
application. GIS has found its way into many
ability to fully realize these interpreta-
areas of archaeological research, especially
in the area of Cultural Resource Manage- tions has been hampered by a lack of
ment (CRM). While GIS offers many tools analytical tools to facilitate them. For-
for the archaeologist, its full potential has tunately, tools now exist for the collec-
not been realized. This paper offers a con- tion, storage, retrieval, manipulation,
ceptual framework in which GIS procedures and display of spatial data from the real
can be detailed, as well as a description of world for this purpose. These tools are
those procedures. The state of archaeologi- combined in a type of software referred
cal GIS in Canada is reviewed, with emphasis
to as a Geographic Information System
on both the academic and CRM applications
(GIS), which is also sometimes called
of GIS. Finally, the paper examines the pos-
sibilities of archaeological GIS. a Geographical Information System
(Burrough 1986:6).
Résumé. L'utilisation des systèmes A GIS is often defined by a minimum
d'information géographiques (SIG) en set of subsystems (to differentiate it
archéologie représente le mariage parfait
from other software packages) includ-
de la technologie et de son application.
ing those for data input and verification,
Les SIG sont intégrés présentement dansdata storage and database management,
plusieurs domaines de recherche en archéo-
data output and display, data conversion,
logie, surtout dans le domaine de la gestion
and user control (Burrough 1986: 8;
des ressources culturelles. Bien que les
SIG offrent plusieurs outils de rechercheKvamme 1999: 157). At its simplest level,
pour les archéologues, leur potentiel n'aGIS can be thought of as a spatially ref-
erenced database (Maschner 1996a: 2).
pas encore été réalisé. Cet article propose
un cadre conceptuel dans lequel les pro- The spatial data employed describe
objects in terms of: 1) a position in
cédures SIG sont décrites. Une mise à jour
de l'utilisation des SIG en archéologie au
some co-ordinate system; 2) non-spatial
Canada est faite, en mettant l'accent sur les
attributes; and 3) the spatial relations
applications académiques ainsi que dans between
la objects (Burrough 1986: 7).
gestion des ressources culturelles. Finale-
GIS may be one of the most impor-
ment, le potentiel futur des SIG en archéo-
logie est exploré. tant technological innovations in archae-
ology in the past twenty years. It has

A DISCIPLINE, ARCHAEOLOGY HAS

+ Department of Archaeology,
always had a focus on the spatial
55 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan,
dimension of human behaviour. As a Saskatoon, SKS7N 5B1 [[email protected]]

Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28: 319-341 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
320 • EBERT

made various types of spatial analysis, We can further delineate GIS by

especially over large regions, possible,recognizing a hierarchy of three levels
practical and potentially sophisticated.of application in archaeology: 1) visual-
GIS has had an impact in the way that
ization; 2) management; and 3) analysis
archaeology is done, both in the aca- below) . This ordering does
(described
deme and in the Cultural Resource Man- not imply that one is more important
than the other, but does indicate dif-
agement (CRM) industry. In fact, skill in
the use of GIS has become increasingly ferences in GIS analytical capabilities,
important in the consulting world. Per- offering a range of opportunities for the
haps the largest trend in GIS has been generation of hypotheses and theory.
the change from doing many of these Visualization is the use of GIS as a
sorts of analyses in specialized software,
map-making center or, more informally,
separate from a GIS, to having the ability
as a "pretty pictures" application. It is the
to do them within the GIS. lowest level of GIS use and requires little
Two aspects of archaeological GIS arein the way of analytical capability because
examined and discussed in this paper.
it focuses on the graphical functions of
GIS. While this can be a vital application
Starting with a hierarchical classification
of GIS strategies, I introduce and then of GIS, since effective illustration within
discuss specific GIS procedures withinarchaeological
a reports is an important
variety of archaeological contexts. I then task, it does not take advantage of the
examine the types of GIS projects that full capabilities of GIS, nor does it offer
have occurred in Canadian archaeology, much in the way of hypothesis or theory
discuss the implications of the limited generation. Visualization is essentially
availability of GIS instruction in universi-the "read-only" mode of GIS.
ties, and comment on its potential future Management is a step above visual-
contributions. ization in terms of complexity, and is
widely utilized by those who regulate
APPLICATIONS OF GIS IN archaeological resources and those who
ARCHAEOLOGY are involved in the CRM industry. It is
GIS in archaeology is much more essentially
than the "read-write" mode of GIS
just the creation of aesthetically since it allows data editing. This level of
pleasing
maps. Instead, it has a strong analytical GIS usage is geared more towards the
role to offer. Care must be taken, how-
management of locations, rather than
ever, that just because we can any attempt to do analysis and under-
do some-
thing in GIS we do not start letting stand humanit behaviour, such as looking
define what is done. As Hasenstab (2003)
at settlement patterns. While more com-
argues, GIS cannot be allowed plex to be than
the visualization, this approach
methodological tail that wags the stilldog.
does not employ the full analytical
A general review of the archaeologi- capabilities of the GIS nor does it offer
cal GIS literature reveals three main lines much possibility of theory generation. It
of inquiry: 1) site location models, devel- is in this level that most archaeological
oped mostly for the purpose of culturalGIS projects occur.
resource management; 2) GIS procedure- The highest level of GIS use is that of
related studies; and 3) studies relating toanalysis, both in technical terms and as a
larger theoretical issues in landscapemeans of generating or testing theory. Of
archaeology (Savage 1990: 22). course, to what extent GIS is ever theory

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 321

trends
driven is hotly debated. While this in data sets or interpolate scat-
level
tered points to a wider distribution
may be the highest level of application,
pattern. There are two types of point
it seems to be less commonly employed
than the previous two levels. procedures: density mapping and inter-
polation. Density mapping is the creation
Spatial Data of maps showing the distribution of a
There are two main types of spatial data variable of interest across a surface, such
in archaeology: point data and areal as artifacts in a plowed field or sites in
data. Point data includes such things a region. From this sort of mapping, it
as spot locations for artifacts, features, is possible to analyze locational trends,
and archaeological excavation units. although these approaches are gener-
They are single locations identified by ally crude (Kvamme 1988: 339). Density
their three-point provenience. Areal mapping tends not to appear as an
data includes things such as a surface, individual procedure in the archaeologi-
landscape, site, or region. Each of these cal literature, although it is a mainstay
types of data has specific GIS analytical of most archaeological reports as part
procedures, and these, in turn, offer dif- of the overall presentation. Generally
ferent possibilities for management and speaking, density mapping would fall
analysis of archaeological data. into the visualization level of GIS use.

An example of a simple density map is

Point Procedures shown in Figure 1.
Point procedures focus on point loca- It is also possible to use point data to
tions, and are often used to analyze create continuous surface data through

Figure 1. Distributional map of sites (sites are represented by solid triangles).

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
322 • EBERT

was created,
the use of interpolation, which consists of which made it easier to see
a number of mathematical procedures
patterns in certain areas.
to convert point distributions to aThe archaeological literature is
con-
tinuous surface (see Ebert 1998,somewhat
2002 scant in terms of GIS projects
for extended discussion). Many of
thatthese
employ interpolation types of point
interpolation techniques are based on An early study by Zubrow
procedures.
theories other than probabilityand
theory
Harbaugh (1978) employed kriging
to determine
(Altschul 1988: 69), such as gravity or archaeological site loca-
tions using non-GIS methods. While they
density models. An example of interpola-
obtained
tion is krigingy which is based on the prem- good results from a synthetic
sitemore
ise that things nearby tend to be system, their use of kriging was
misguided. Kriging uses the relation-
alike than those further away (Goodchild
ship between a continuously distributed
1996: 243); when maps are interpolated,
variable to make predictions of values
data closer to the spot being interpolated
where that variable is unknown, such as
have greater influence than data further
away. An example of a map created by
interpolating soil types, elevation values,
interpolation is shown in Figureor2.snowfall. This However, Zubrow and Har-
map was created from fieldwalking baugh argue that archaeological sites
data
gathered during the Als Archaeological can be considered as being continuously
Project (Ebert 1998). The purposedistributed.
of this To achieve a continuous
map was to create a distributiondistribution,
map in they used a binary pres-
order to aid in interpretation ofence/absence
surface system, meaning a value
finds. Patterns are often hard to discern of zero is assigned to those areas where
when the data are presented as single there are no sites. Other kriging meth-
points. However, by interpolating the ods, such as co-kriging, would have been
surface finds, a continuous distribution more appropriate (Ebert 1998).

Figure 2. Fieldwalking finds interpolated by Kriging (from Ebert 1998).

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 323

GIS-BASED APPLICATIONS OF
An interesting application of interpo-
lation is the use of interpolation and AREAL GIS PROCEDURES

analysis to determine occupation In levels

archaeological GIS, there are four
in a site (Anderson 2003; Spikins common
et al. applications of areal proce-
2002). While the rigorousness of dures:
these1) predictive modeling; 2) catch-
types of applications is still unproven, ment analysis;
it 3) viewshed analysis; and
shows promise of new possibilities 4)within
simulation. These procedures repre-
GIS applications in archaeological sent only a fraction of the possibilities,
research. Nonetheless, there are several and many unexplored areas of GIS are
problems in using this simple type of open to investigation by archaeologists.
analysis. Data of this type are generally For present purposes, however, each of
cross-sectional, in that they represent the four is described here.
snapshots in time, often conflated into
a single layer of thematic information Predictive Models
(Goodchild 1996: 245). For example, Predictive models attempt to predict the
archaeological sites in a region may not location of sites or materials in a region,
be all contemporaneous. This type of based either on a sample of the sites
spatial analysis is an analysis of form, in the region or on theories of human
whereas understanding underlying pro- behaviour (Köhler and Parker 1986:
cess is what is really desired (Goodchild 400). They are tools for projecting pat-
1996:245). terns or known relationships (i.e., areas
of known archaeological resources) into
Areal Procedures related areas of unknown patterns or
Areal procedures are much more relationships (i.e., areas of unknown
common in archaeological GIS. Therearchaeological resources) (Warren and
can be some overlap with point proce- Asch 2000: 6). All predictive models are
dures, such as map interpolation tech- composed of three elements: 1) avail-
niques, which treat the site location, orable knowledge or body of informa-
some aspect thereof, as the dependent tion from which a model is derived;
variable that is being predicted by any2) the method(s) used to transform
number of independent variables (Alt- this information into predictions; and
schul 1988: 69). Here, even though the 3) the predictions themselves (Warren
input geometry may be on a point-basis,1990a: 91-93). Predictive modeling has
the focus of the procedures is essentially been most commonly used in the CRM
on the landscape or region and on industry (Carmichael 1990: 216), but has
interpreting the sites in that context, received only limited academic scrutiny,
rather than on the point-locations especially in Canada.
themselves. In other words, the unit of
analysis is a given area or land parcel, Deductive and Inductive Models
commonly represented by a grid cellThere are two general approaches to
in the GIS. The cell holds the value of
predictive modeling: deductive and
the point. In the case of archaeologicalinductive (Kamermans and Wansleeben
sites, the entire cell would either have1999; Kincaid 1988; Köhler 1999). In
a value of site present or absent, even practice, these modeling approaches
though the cell may be larger than the overlap (Kamermans and Wansleeben
extents of the site. 1999: 225; Kincaid 1988). The terms

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
324 • EBERT

themselves are somewhat misleading asproblems is establishing a system

greatest
neither is purely inductive or deductive
of ranking criteria that affect locational
in nature (despite this, these decisions.
are the Because it is not possible to
dominant terms in the literature).
access the full range of criteria used in
land-use decisions, proxies must used
Deductive Modeling in their place. However, the quality of
The basis of deductive modeling is a
data utilized for proxy variables is gener-
priori archaeological or anthropological
ally quite poor because as our ability to
knowledge, such as that derivedmap from these data lacks control over time
a theory of general human behaviour
and changing conditions of those proxy
(Kamermans and Wansleeben 1999: variables.
225;
Köhler 1999: 37). While this is citedDespite
as a such difficulties, deduc-
more powerful method of modeling tive models have been developed for a
than
number of projects. These tend to be
inductive modeling, it is less frequently
employed (Kamermans and Wansleebenbased on locational criteria, not theory,
1999: 225). Deductive models must as illustrated
meet by Krist and Brown's
several requirements. They must: (1994) prediction of site locations as
they relate to the visibility of caribou
• Possess a decision-making mechanism
migration routes. Despite limitations,
for location, as well as an understand-
deductive models hold promise as the
ing of the ends of the decision making
increasing sophistication of software
process; and hardware make technical issues less
• specify variables that affect locationalburdensome.
decisions; and
• be capable of being operationalizedInductive Models
(Köhler and Parker 1986: 432). Inductive models are devices that make
Deductive models can either be use of existing knowledge to forecast
based on a theory, such as optimalspatial
forag- patterns (Warren 1990a: 91)
and have been the most popular form
ing theory, or on a set of hypothetical
criteria for site locations. Deductiveof predictive modeling (Dalla Bona
models can be applicable to any 1994a).
situa- Inductive models have been
tion characterized by a specified set alternatively
of termed intuitive or asso-
ciational
cultural system and ecosystem variables (Altschul 1988), empiric-cor-
(Sebastian and Judge 1988: 7). The relative (Köhler and Parker 1986), and
greatest challenge of deductive modelscorrelative (Church et al 2000; Marozas
and
is that they are extremely difficult to Zack 1990; Sebastian and Judge
create and to validate (Sebastian and 1988: 4). Regardless of the terminology,
Judge 1988: 8). this approach can be considered analo-
Deductive models are considered gous to pattern recognition procedures
more powerful than inductive models employed in remote sensing image clas-
because they are explanatory. Nonethe-sification (Kvamme 1992: 20), and, in
fact, many of the same procedures and
less, they have received little attention
in archaeology, something likely due to are used.
statistics

the difficulty in operationalizing suchMany of the variables used in induc-

tive predictive models tend to recur
models (Dalla Bona 1994a), a problem
many of these models share. One from project to project, such as slope,
of the

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 325

aspect, and distance to water (Kvamme regression, the most commonly used
1985: 218-219; 1992: 25-27; Kvamme statistical interpolator, on lithic density
and Jochim 1989: 5-6), becoming a data from Stonehenge, Wheatley (1996a:
"usual suspects" list of predictors. When287) could account for only 25% of
choosing variables, the preference is forthe variability within the data. This led
variables that are related to site loca- him to question whether this method is
tions, but not correlated to each other appropriate as an interpolator for pat-
(i.e., relatively independent) (Rose and terned human behaviour.
Altschul 1988: 185). The assumption
made in this type of modeling is that Inductive Modeling Methods
non-cultural aspects of environmentThe weighted map layer approach
will correlate and predict site location has been the most popular inductive
(Marozas and Zack 1990: 165). However,modeling method and makes use of
the tendency of archaeological sites to categorical or class-based map layers,
recur in favourable environmental set- with each category being assigned a
tings has been the basis of how many weight relative to conditions found at
archaeologists have found sites through
archaeological sites (Brandt et al. 1992:
271; Dalla Bona 1994a). This allows
their "archaeological gut instinct" and
professional expertise for a long time
specific variables to have more influence
(Kuna and Adelsbergerova 1995; Warrenover predicted site locations than other
1990b: 201; Warren and Asch 2000). variables. One of the ways that weights
Inductive modeling takes an essen-may be determined is through the use of
tially cultural-ecological view of human
multivariate statistical procedures, such
settlement systems (Köhler 1999: as
32;logistic regression (Parker 1985).
Kvamme (1990) proposes a method of
Wheatley 1993: 133). The unit of analysis
is the land parcel, not the site (Warren
determining the relationship between
the distribution of sites and the environ-
1990a: 94). Because sites are compared
against the physical environment of ment, the using statistical methods to eluci-
study area as a whole, we must have date the this relationship. Using one-sample
ability to be able to analyze environmen- statistical tests, the background environ-
tal units, rather than points representingment (i.e., all grid cells within a study
sites. The identification of correlations area) is treated as a control, and statis-
between known archaeological sites and tical deviations from the distribution
certain attributes, usually aspects of theof environmental features are sought
physical environment, is the primary (Kvamme 1990). For such continuous
goal (KamermansandWansleeben 1999:
variables as slope, aspect, or distance
225; Köhler 1999: 37). to water, the Kolmogorov Goodness-of-
Inductive models have a number of
Fit test is preferable (Kvamme 1990:
limitations (Ebert 2000: 129-137), 370).
the One of the major weaknesses of
most significant of which is that (a) their
this method is that by simply changing
success is unexplainable and (b) weweights,
do exponentially different results
not know how they work (Sebastianmay and occur (Brandt et al 1992: 271). It is
Judge 1988: 5). Inductive modeling hasonly possible through the use of GIS to
also been criticized for the methods quantify the background environment
employed, especially the statistical test-
for a large study area in order to com-
ing. For example, using linear multiple
pute this test (Kvamme 1990: 370).

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
326 • EBERT

Figure 3 illustrates a map created

ing of the model is paramount. This can
be done
for a project I am currently working on,solely through laboratory meth-
examining the role of time and ods, such as red flag modeling (Altschul
predic-
1990),
tive modeling. The map shows the or through statistical evaluation,
basic
divisions of high, medium, and low
such as a gain statistic (Kvamme 1988) . In
potential. Although not a particularlyred flag modeling, sites with anomalous
good predictive model because there
settings are examined for possible pre-
are too many cells classified as high dictiveand
variables that have been missed
medium potential, having too many (Altschul
cells 1990). The gain statistic quan-
high and medium potential would also
tifies the predictive power of the model,
make the predictive model a poor based
man- on a scale of -1 (reverse predic-
agement tool. For example, if alltive of power)
the to 1 (very strong predictive
cells were high and medium potential, power) . However, laboratory testing is
a predictive model would correctly generally
find considered to be less effective
sites 100% of the time. However, that than field testing predictive models.
would not save archaeologists any time or
effort, as it would not allow for any focus Extending Inductive Predictive Modeling
of a potential archaeological survey. An important question in the analysis of
sites concerns how many axes the data
Inductive Model Testing may be divided into in order to examine
Once a model is created, whether by temporal, functional, and spatial dif-
inductive or deductive techniques, test- ferences (Kincaid 1988: 557; Rose and

Figure 3. Example of a predictive model map (black=low potential, grey = medium potential,
white = high potential). Dark circles are known sites from which predictive model was created.

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 327

Altschul 1988), given that different mappable

types proxies, with archaeologi-
cal site location. However, the role of
of sites may be associated with different
sets of variables (Rose and Altschulsocial,
1988:ideological, and political factors
has received
205). It is unclear if adding this level of little attention in the pre-
diction of site locations (Weimer 1995:
detail provides any significant advan-
tages. This question has received little
91). While a large body of ethnographic
attention and is currently unresolved.data is available for use in prediction, it
This type of approach is illustrated hasbyreceived limited usage despite the
Robert Hasenstab 's (1996: 230) study of
potential it has. For example, Dalla Bona
Iroquoian villages. His classificationandof Larcombe (1996) incorporated an
sites was based on three types: 1) func-
ethnographic data in reconstructing the
tional (villages versus campsites); 2)seasonal
tem- round of boreal forest hunter-
poral (five occupation periods);gatherers
and for a predictive land-use model
for northern Ontario (see also Larcombe
3) spatial (three physiographic/cultural
zones). These were analyzed on the1994).
basis One reasons they chose to use to
of three classes of environmental data: do this was because the ethnographic
sources provided information on the
1) those related to hunting territories;
2) those related to maize horticulture;
social and spiritual significance of natu-
and 3) those influencing trade, espe- ral resources (Dalla Bona and Larcombe
cially canoe routes (Hasenstab 1996: 1996:254).
230). The results of this study were thatStancic and Kvamme (1999) also
incorporated what they termed social
the data and methods return only tenta-
tive answers, and that it was difficult to
variables into their analysis of Bronze
evaluate the results because confound- Age hillforts on the island of Bra in
ing factors, such as autocorrelationCroatia.
and These variables included: 1) dis-
covariance between the variables, may
tance between hillforts; 2) intervisibility;
play a role (Hasenstab 1996: 238). 3) distance from the sea; and 4) location
of long barrows (Stancic and Kvamme
Criticisms of Inductive Modeling 1999: 234) . While at first glance, distance
to the ocean seems no different from an
A variety of concerns have been raised
regarding predictive modeling. These
environmental predictive variable, in
include questions about the accuracy thisof
case it is the reverse because hillforts
site locational data(Dalla Bona 1994a: 29; located a considerable distance
were
Duncan and Beckman 2000: 55; Ebert from the coast (Stancic and Kvamme
2000), the accuracy of the environmental 1999:234).
data set (Duncan and Beckman 2000: 55; Predictive models based solely on
Ebert 2000), and how areas of archaeo- environmental considerations do seem
logical potential are defined - somethingto predict the settlement patterns of
seldom explicitly stated in modeling hunter-gatherers fairly well (Maschner
reports (Dalla Bona 1994a: 15). 1996b: 176). However when the focus
One of the greatest failings of tradi-is on more "complex" social or political
tional inductive modeling projects has forms, such as the complex hunter-gath-
been the lack of any non-environmentalerer populations of the Northwest Coast,
predictor variables. The focus of predic-the predictions do not seem to work as
tive modeling has been the correlation well. This phenomenon is likely due to
of environmental variables, as readily the fact that in complex social systems,

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
328 • EBERT

political decisions make moresen

ofpolygon
an is closer to the centre of
thatenvi-
impact than does adaptation to the polygon than the centre of the
ronment (Maschner 1996b: 178). For polygon(s).
adjacent
Site catchment analysis was one of
example, in later periods of Northwest
thesettle-
coast prehistory, there is a shift in methods employed in the Dane-
ment patterning from one relatedbury study of Iron Age settlements in
to the
distribution of key resources toEngland
one of (Lock and Harris 1996). Here,
defensibility and the creation of larger
the spatial relationships between farm-
corporate entities (Maschner steads
1996b: were examined through the use
of 400- and 1000-m buffers around each
187). Maschner sees this in evolutionary
terms as a shift from economic maximi- of the settlements. The 400-m buffer
zation to political maximization. simulates an infield system under the
control of a single farmstead, whereas
Catchment Analysis the 1000-m buffer represents overlap-
A second application of areal procedures ping spheres of influence (Lock and
in archaeological GIS is site catchment Harris 1996: 235-236). This overlap may
analysis. Site catchment analysis as origi-be explained through the suggestion of
nally formulated (Vita-Finzi and Higgs sharing of communal grazing resources
1970) has two major limitations: a lack (Lock and Harris 1996: 236). The
of complexity and a lack of accuracy authors concluded that Iron Age settle-
(Hunt 1992). GIS offers the possibility ments reflect an inherent competition
to extend the catchment method beyond for resources, resulting in a regularly
its initial form to a more sophisticated spaced settlement pattern (Lock and
level of analysis. Harris 1996: 237).
The issue of accuracy relates to the One way of making improving site
identification of appropriate ecosystems catchment analysis is through the
and the arbitrariness of catchment introduction of cost surfaces. A cost sur-
analysis (i.e., whether it represents face acknowledges the fact that move-
the true pattern of cultural practice) ment through space does not entail
(Hunt 1992). GIS can overcome both equal costs energetically (Kvamme
of these problems (Hunt 1992) since 1999: 175). To create a cost surface, a
it can not only maintain multiple origi-cost map is produced that represents
nal categories of data, thus allowingimpedances to movement imposed by
greater complexity in the analysis, butthe natural environment (Madry and
facilitate the addition of more complex Rakos 1996: 113), such as slope, veg-
catchment areas instead of the geo- etative cover, natural barriers, or other
metric shapes (i.e., circles) currentlyfactors (Kvamme 1999: 175-176). Most
employed in catchment analysis. Site studies using cost surfaces have relied
catchment can also be done through heavily on slope to determine the cost
the use of Thiessen polygons, whose of movement (van Leusen 1999: 217).
edges are half the distance to the next The simple use of slope as the determi-
nearest site (Kvamme 1999: 175). Since nant of cost requires that isotropy, or
the polygons partition the entire regionvariation based on direction, is consid-
into non-overlapping territories that are ered. For example, travel up a slope is
assigned to a specific locus (Kvamme much more difficult energetically than
1999: 175), every point inside a Thies- travel down a slope (van Leusen 1999:

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 329

217), so isotropie cost involved. If a Analysis

Viewshed
cost surface is created that indicates The study of visibility can take one of
slope cost as being all downhill,number
the of forms. The simplest form o
resulting map will not be a realistic.
analysis is a line of sight analysis, whic
Because cost varies according toconsiders
the whether one point is visible
direction of travel or other factors from another (Kvamme 1999: 177). A
more
(e.g., vegetation), cost surfaces must be complex type of visibility analysi
made isotropie. is the calculation of a viewshed (a map o
Cost surfaces can be used in a locations that are visible/not visible from
a given
number of different ways to enhance location, derived from a digit
site
elevation model). A viewshed is simply
catchment analysis more or to determine
the latter
optimum paths. An example of the calculation of multiple lines of sigh
is found in Madry and Rakos' in a(1996)
360-degree circle from a single loca
tion, specifying_all
study of Celtic Iron Age pathways. The the areas that are
paths were thought to be placed visible from a single location (Kvamm
on the
ridge top simply as a preference 1999: 177). An example of a viewshed
(Madry
and Rakos 1996: 115). What they foundin Figure 4, where visible area
provided
after examining the location from
of the
the white dot (the location of th
viewer) are shown in black and non-vis
actual paths with the least-cost pathways
ibleplaced
was that the paths were ultimately areas are shown in grey. Viewshed
can be
based on a combination of cultural used to understand aspects o
(vis-
ibility from the hillforts) andlocation,
environ-such as whether a site location
was
mental (least-cost paths) factors chosen to optimize what could b
(Madry
and Rakos 1996: 117). seen from that point. Additional com-

Figure 4. A sample viewshed (white dot = observer location, grey = no

black = visible areas) .

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
330 • EBERT

plexity can be added by calculating a

study area, which is visible from the hill-
forts (Madry and Rakos 1996: 111), and
multiple viewshed, which is calculated
from the Boolean union of viewsheds indicates that roads were built specifically
from a number of individual locations to be in view of one of the hillforts, rather
(Kvamme 1999: 178). than randomly. Moreover, 59.85% of the
One way that a multiple roads were visible from the two main
views-
hed could be applied would be the
hillforts in the region, suggesting that
calculation of all of the areas visible roads were built to be observed from the

from a series of hilltops. Cumulative

hillforts (Madry and Rakos 1996: 111).
In addition to these applications,
viewsheds are the sum of those taken
from a number of individual locations viewsheds have been used with a predic-
(Kvamme 1999: 178; Wheatley 1995). tive capacity. For the Great Lakes area,
The result of a cumulative viewshed is for example, Krist and Brown (1994:
that each cell in the map holds a value 1130)
of employed viewsheds to evaluate
the degree to which precontact hunters
locations from which the point is visible.
situated
Visibility analysis has been proposed as themselves to observe the pre-
a method of bridging the gap betweendictable caribou migrations. A cost sur-
current data and social and cognitive
face was thus created by them to simulate
landscapes (Lock 1995: 16). possible caribou migrations paths, with
Viewsheds have been employedhunters
to situating themselves in sheltered
areas or near look-out points to observe
understand the social landscape, includ-
migration (Krist and Brown 1994: 1133).
ing such aspects of it as the relationship
between visual dominance and territo- Although this model provided important
riality (Lock and Harris 1996: 224). information
For about Paleoindian and Early
example, one of the goals of Danebury Archaic sites in the region, the authors
project mentioned previously wasconcluded
to that better data regarding
determine whether the hillforts were
caribou migration were necessary to
located were they were to provide visual
fully evaluate the predictive power of this
model (Krist and Brown 1994: 1135).
dominance that could be exerted over
a territory, or for purely defensive pur-
poses. Lock and Harris (1996: 232-233)
Methodological Problems with Viewsheds
found that the maximum defensive There are several methodological prob-
protection was waived in order to lems with viewshed analysis. First, there
obtain
maximum visibility over the local ispopu- the difference between the calculated
lace of lower-order farmsteads. Visibility viewshed and what can actually be seen
was also one of the factors evaluated by the
by observer (van Leusen 1999: 218);
Madry and Rakos (1996) in their study what can be seen, according to the
of Celtic roads and hillforts in the Arroux viewshed, might not be perceived by the
River valley in Burgundy, France. One viewer. A related problem to this question
of the hypotheses examined was that is the "tree-problem" (Maschner 1996a:
forts had a view over the roads, perhaps 8; Wheatley 1996b: 97)- viewsheds tend
for sentries to observe the road network to be created as if the landscape was flat,
(Madry and Rakos 1996: 111). They and trees or other vegetation are not
found that 86.31% of all the Celtic roads
factored in. This problem can be allevi-
were in view of one of the hillforts. This
ated by raising or lowering the height
is greater than the 68.37% of the total of the observer to simulate the average

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 331

tree height in the region (Maschner

calculated versus perceived viewsheds
1996a: 8; Wheatley 1996b: 97).and
Second,
the technical problem of curvature
of the
there is an edge-effect problem, earth.
where
viewsheds might extend further than
Simulation
the edges of a study area (van Leusen
1999: 218). Third, there is the A question
simulation model is a simplified rep-
of significance (van Leusen 1999: resentation
219), of reality (Chadwick 1979:
which considers whether there is It
237). any
is not a snapshot of reality, but
a depiction that aids in identifying and
appreciable difference between visibility
from archaeological sites and that from
understanding the processes involved in
any other point (van Leusen 1999: 219).
its evolution, either through description
In other words, while it is assumed that
or explanation (Chadwick 1979: 237).
While much of the history of simulation
the degree of visibility from an archaeo-
logical site is high, there may modeling
be otherrelates to the development of
specialized
areas where the visibility is greater, and software outside the realm
therefore more significant. Fourth, of GIS, its inclusion within GIS has now
there
is the decrease of visual impact become with dis-more common.

tance (Wheatley 1996b: 98), especially A simulation

of seeks to model a phe-
such monumental sites as long nomenon barrows by identifying key variables
or hillforts. Finally, viewshed alsoand examining their interactions. This
suffers
from certain technical and data can quality
be done with computer applications
errors (Wheatley 1995: 182). that allow the analyst to run multiple
Some of these issues noted here are iterations with the key variables being
evident in the viewshed depictedmodified in to examine their impact on the
Figure 4. For example, one common outcome (Aldenderfer 1991: 196). The
technical problem in viewshed analysis idea of using simulations in archaeology
is not new. David Clarke introduced com-
is that the curvature of the earth, which
affects how far one can see, is not taken
puter simulation as a tool for archaeolog-
into account. In Figure 4, some of the
ical research in his 1968 book, Analytical
areas that are shown as visible are some
Archaeology (Aldenderfer 1991: 208).
14 km from the viewing location. Simulation has generally been
employed in three ways by archaeolo-
One solution to the failings of views-
hed analysis has been the introduction a 1) as a tool to force clear thinking
gists:
more complex form known as fuzzy view-in the formulation of a problem; 2) as
sheds (Maschner 1996a: 9). Traditionalan experimental laboratory; and 3) as
viewshed analysis evaluates locationsa as
means to generate data (Aldenderfer
being visible or not visible from a given
1991: 211). The advantage of simulation
location. Fuzzy viewsheds add a distance
is that the models emphasize dynamic
processes, distributed processes, and
decay function, which models the degree
relationships among agents, none of
to which distant objects may be visible
(Maschner 1996a: 9). Instead of being which are present in traditional analyses
a visible/ not-visible dichotomy, fuzzy
(Köhler 1999: 2). Although simulation
viewsheds introduce an uncertainty,
cannot give researchers access to the
entire human experience, it does allow
consisting of visible/not-visible/possibly vis-
ible distinctions. This addition addresses researchers access to portions (Köhler
both the problems of differences in 1999:3).

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
332 • EBERT

insights
A specialized form of simulation that into colonization from the
has received considerable attention of
sea, foraging patterns, and settlement
patterns. The results were somewhat
late is agent-based simulation. This method
allows the creation of landscapesproblematic,
that however, because artifact
can be wholly imaginary or representa- discard patterns and the settlement pat-
terns did not mesh well with the known
tive of real-world situations (or aspects
thereof), and agents can be modified archaeological
to record, perhaps indicat-
ing that foraging for hazelnuts was not
represent important features of individu-
als or social units, such as households a major determinant of Mesolithic land
(Dean et al 1999: 179). The way that use on Islay (Lake 1999: 137).
agents behave in relation to each other Simulation holds much promise in
or to the environment can then be gov- archaeological research, and perhaps
erned by anthropologically validated addresses the problems of operation-
rules (Dean et al 1999: 180). alizing deductive predictive models.
Lake (1999) demonstrates the Agents could be programmed with
use of an agent-based module forbehaviour
the rules derived from theories,
GRASS GIS system, called MAGICALas is done in MAGICAL, and site loca-
tions could be simulated based on those
(Multi-Agent Geographically Informed
Computer Analysis). This systembehaviour
was rules. However, the creation
specifically designed for hunter-gath- of simulations usually requires a high
erer studies so it reflects an emphasis degree of computer skills, including
on mobility, subsistence, and rational knowledge of programming languages,
decision making. Each agent in MAGI- and may thus remain impractical for
CAL has its own set of variables, which most archaeologists.
is affected by its own life history (Lake
1999: 110). This means that this system ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS IN CANADA

is basically an adaptive system in which Archaeological GIS has been widely

the agent can learn from its actionsadoptedand in European and American
change its strategy in response to previ- archaeology, but far less so in Canada.
ous successful actions (Gilbert 1999: Where is has been employed in Canada,
364) . Using an evolutionary-ecological the majority of applications have been in
paradigm, agents have the ability to have CRM and government-based archaeol-
a user-specified genotype (Lake 1999: ogy rather than in academic archaeol-
111). The core of MAGICAL is an event ogy. Compounding this problem is that
scheduler, which receives requests from much of what has been written about
agents to perform certain actions and or derived from the limited number of
grants permission at appropriate times archaeological GIS projects conducted
(Lake 1999: 111). What distinguishesexists only in the grey literature of CRM-
MAGICAL from many other simula- based and academic archaeology.
tors is the spatial database that allows That most GIS projects have been
all actions to be spatially referenced conducted for or by the CRM industry,
(Lake 1999: 112). In Lake's study, which (and to a certain extent its governmen-
employed optimal foraging theory, the tal counterparts) is likely driven likely
foragers were sent out foraging for hazel-by the desires of its clients. Many of the
nuts on the island of Islay in Scotland. sectors with whom CRM companies hold
The simulation gave the archaeologists contracts have already adopted GIS and

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 333

thus are comfortable with its use and Compounding this problem is that the
understand its capabilities. Forestry
departments of the four individuals
companies are accustomed to the use listed
of above have either terminal Mas-
GIS models to delin eate wildlife habitat,
ters' programs or no graduate program
at all.
for example. As a result, in working with
forestry companies, I have found first-
Given the paucity of academics with
interest in this area, few classes in archae-
hand that having forestry GIS specialists
and archaeological GIS specialist speak-
ological GIS are offered in archaeology
ing a common language enabled them programs across Canada. This apparent
to translate the concerns of the various
lack of interest has important implications
stakeholders to their forestry and archae-
for the archaeology departments who are
ology colleagues, respectively. training the students, many of whom go
It is unfortunate for Canadian on to careers in consulting archaeology,
archaeologists that so much of the
where they may find themselves in a job
CRM-oriented GIS work remains wherepoorly
it is helpful to have experience
known. Failure to publish the in results
GIS. It of
is certainly possible to obtain
such projects is one reason. In training
addition,in GIS through other depart-
since much of it contains proprietary
ments, primarily geography, but these
information, access to these reports
programsisdo not provide information
about archaeological applications. How
very limited. However, some consulting
archaeologists have presented their work
then do our students get the training in
at conferences (e.g., the CRIMP modelsthat is highly marketable in
something
of Western Heritage). the CRM industry? Clearly, more exper-
The situation in academic archae- tise is needed, but that will only come with
ology is also problematic. There, the
time as more faculty with an interest in,
literature on archaeological GISand
hastraining in, archaeological GIS are
been limited to unpublished theses andby academic departments.
hired
dissertations. Furthermore, there are
currently few professors at Canadian Archaeological GIS Projects in Canada
universities and colleges that list GIS as To date, there have been only two
a research interest. In my experience as major academic GIS projects in Canada,
a member of the graduate admissions both of which were concerned with
committee at the University of Manitoba predictive modeling and forestry. The
(1998-2002), increasing numbers of CARP project (Dalla Bona 1994a, b;
graduate students expressed interest in Hamilton et al 1994; Hamilton and Lar-
doing a research project involving GIS. combe 1994; Larcombe 1994), based at
There are, however, few supervisors in Lakehead University, was a pioneering
Canada who are trained in GIS. A review examination of predictive modeling
I conducted of Canadian university web- projects. It remains a widely cited project
in the archaeological GIS literature,
sites revealed that only four archaeology
professors in Canada list GIS as an inter-
widely used in many other projects as
est: James Conolly (Trent University)a , primer in predictive modeling, and
Scott Hamilton (Lakehead University),has influenced how inductive, weighted-
Quentin Mackie (University of Victoria),layer modeling is done.
and myself. A slightly larger number list A second, more recent predictive
"computer applications" as an interest.
modeling project is the Manitoba Model

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
334 • EBERT

archaeologists
Forest Archaeological Predictive Model- to recreate on their desk-
ing Project (MbMF APMP) (Eberttops what
2003; may never be seen again-past
societies and
Petch et al 2000a, b). This project hascivilizations. While these
constructs
examined the feasibility of doing this are purely theoretical, they
allow
type of predictive modeling in the testing of empirically collected data
boreal
forests of Manitoba with a great deal
to see of
if patterns in the simulation match
patterns
success. Like the CARP project, this proj- in the data. If so, the result would
tend to support explanatory hypotheses.
ect also employed an inductive weighted-
layer approach to modeling. However, empirical data are sometimes
scanty and commonly biased towards
CONCLUSIONS "'conventional wisdom," something
archaeologists
GIS provides archaeologists with a series engaging in simulation
of methods that can be employedmust keep toin mind.
pursue various lines of inquiry Many
withEuropean archaeologists
archaeological data in a singlehavedigital
raised concerns that GIS re-intro-
environment (Lock and Harris 1996: duces environmental determinism to

216). For example, since human settle- archaeology but most believe that this
ment pattern choices are based on a mul- problem can be overcome because GIS
tiplicity of factors, employing a number can be extended to include non-envi-
of different research techniques facili- ronmental data, and therefore move
tates the development of better model beyond simple culture-environmental
human settlement pattern choices. relationships to more complex under-
By sheer weight of use, predictive standings of culture (Gaffney et al.
modeling has received the majority of 1996; Gaffney and van Leusen 1995).
attention of all GIS applications. Predic- The cognitive information relating
tive modeling has shown that there are to how communities perceive and
important regularities that can be exam- interpret the environment around
them is patterned, and therefore
ined with regards to settlement in relation
to the physical environment, but more should be measurable and mappable
work needs to be done to include cultural (Gaffney et al 1996: 134), and there-
information, such as ethnographic land- fore available for use in a GIS.
use data, especially in the context of the Much remains to be done with GIS
Aboriginal peoples of North America. to improve our ability to model and ana-
However, archaeologists must rememberlyze settlement patterns from precontact
that predictive modeling is only one times. For example, one of the greatest
of many applications that can help to concerns that archaeologists have about
understand human behaviour. Site catch- GIS is that it is currently atemporal,
ment analysis gives a glimpse into the with spatial phenomena being handled
relationship between the landscape and as a slice of time (Castleford 1992:
the site, and can extend the knowledge of 25). This approach uses snapshots of
why people settle in one location and not particular periods to show change over
another. Visibility and viewshed studies time. Castleford (1992: 103) proposes
may also give us an idea of preferential that the solution to this problem may
use of the landscape. Finally, simulation be as simple as tagging spatial data with
provides an area of exciting possibility both a temporal and spatial identifier.
in settlement pattern analysis in allowing Although this solution is somewhat sim-

Canadi an Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 335

are regionally-based applications of GIS.

plistic and might create more problems
that it solves, the addition of a Recently
temporalthere has been more attention
dimension will revolutionize the use of paid to other scales of analysis, such as the
GIS in archaeology and the many other site itself (e.g., Quesada et al 1995) or
fields that are concerned with temporal
even levels within the site (e.g., Abe et al
2002; Marean etal 2001). While such
aspects of spatial distributions. Finally,
scale of sites, level, and artifact analyses
with a temporally oriented GIS, archae-
are not new, the addition of archaeologi-
ologists will be able to look at cultural
cal GIS
change, culture process, and cultural methods to address these holds

much promise.
evolution, as time is one of the key vari-
ables of interests to archaeologist, oftenGIS clearly provides a powerful set
even more so than space. of tools for the analysis and exploration
Similarly, GIS must be made toof besettlement patterns of past peoples. It
truly three-dimensional. GIS currently is reaching greater levels of acceptance
supports primarily a two-dimensional in many fields, especially as hardware
map, to which a third dimensionbecomes
is more powerful and afford-
appendedmaking it what some referable,
to as the software more sophisticated
as 2.5 dimensional. For archaeologists
and user-friendly, and as more digital
who work with sites that are three dimen- datasets come online. The future of GIS

sional, this makes the representation

in archaeology will be one of growth as
more academics adopt it for their own
of things like stratigraphy and cultural
research, more departments offer train-
levels very difficult, if not impossible.
Furthermore, the underlying theo-ing, and more CRM companies delve
retical basis of GIS applications in deeper into its applications GIS. While
archaeology needs to be examined. some aspects of archaeological GIS in
Some (e.g., Church et al 2000) have Canada remain underdeveloped, there
argued that GIS is a method in search
remains much reason for optimism for its
of a theory. While this argument may befuture here. This is especially true if more
somewhat of a red herring, since otherstudents seek training in GIS techniques,
methodologies (e.g., zooarchaeology)for their knowledge and skills will have
are not attacked for being atheoretical,substantial long-term benefits for the
itis clear that those involved in using GISpractice of archaeology in Canada.
in archaeology must take a step back and
consider both how we are using GIS and Acknowledgements. An early version of this
how we are applying it within a theoreti-paper was given in the Arch 990 Seminar
Series for the Graduate Student in the
cal framework with a rigourous research
design. It is likely that as GIS applicationsDepartment of Archaeology, University of
mature and as more GIS-trained archae- Saskatchewan. Thanks are due to the review-

ers of this article for the C/Ä, whose com-

ologists work the methods will find their
ments greatly strengthened the paper and to
theoretical place within established gen-
Dr. Ariane Burke.
eral theories in archaeology.
Even without many of these changes,
GIS has evolved from earlier archaeolog- REFERENCES CITED
ical applications to new and innovative
Abe, Y, C.W. Marean, PJ. Nilssen,
Z. Assefa, and E. C. Stone
uses at a variety of scales. For example,
most of the examples discussed above 2002 The Analysis of Cutmarks on

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336 • EBERT

Archaeofauna: A Review and Carmichael,

Critique D. L.
1990 GIS
of Quantification Procedures and a Predictive Modeling of Pre-
historic Site Distributions in Central
New Image-Analysis GIS Approach.
American Antiquity 67(4): 643-663.
Montana. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
Aldenderfer, M. Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen,
S.W. Green, and E.B.W. Zubrow,
1991 The Analytical Engine: Com-
pp. 216-225. Taylor and Francis,
puter Simulations and Archaeological
London.
Research. In Archaeological Method and
Castleford,J.
Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M.B. Schiffer,
1992 Archaeology, GIS and the Time
pp. 195-247. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson. Dimension: An Overview. In Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods
Altschul, J.
in Archaeology 1991, edited by G. Lock
1988 Models and the Modeling
and J. Moffett, pp. 95-106. Bar Inter-
Process. In Quantifying the Present and
Predicting the Past: Theory, Method and
national Series 577. Tempus Repara-
tum, Oxford.
Application of Archaeological Predictive
Modeling, edited by W. J. Judge and Chadwick, A. J.
L. Sebastian, pp. 61-96. Government 1979 Settlement Simulation.

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. In Transformations: Mathematical

Approaches to Culture Change, edited by
1990 Red Flag Models: The Use
C. Renfrew and KL. Cooke, pp. 237-
of Modeling in Management Con-
255. Academic Press, New York.
texts. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, Church, T., R.J. Brandon, and
S.W. Green, and E.B.W. Zubrow, G.R.Burgett
pp. 226-238. Taylor and Francis, 2000 GIS Applications in Archaeol-
London. ogy: Method in Search of Theory. In
Anderson, K. Practical Applications of GIS for Archae-
ologists: A Predictive Modeling Kit, edited
2003 Refining the Definition of
Cultural Levels at Karabi Tamchin: A by K. L. Wecott and R.J. Brandon,
pp. 135-155. Taylor and Francis,
Quantitative Approach to Vertical Intra-
Philadelphia.
Site Spatial Analysis. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Department Dalla Bona, L.
of Anthropology, University of 1 994a Cultural Heritage Resource Predic-
Manitoba, Winnipeg. tive Modeling Project, Vol 3 Methodologi-
cal Considerations. Centre For Archaeo-
Brandt, R., B.J. Groenewoudt, and
K. L. Kvamme logical Resource Prediction.
1992 An Experiment in Archaeologi- 1 994b Cultural Heritage Resource Predic-
cal Site Location: Modeling in the tive Modeling Project: Vol. 4 a Predictive
Netherlands Using GIS Techniques. Model of Prehistoric Activity Location for
World Archaeology 24(2): 268-282. Thunder Bay District, Ontario. Center
for Archaeological Resource Predic-
Burrough, P.A.
tion, Thunder Bay.
1986 Principles of GIS for Land
Dalla Bona, L., and L. Larcombe
Resources Assessment Clarendon Press,
Oxford. 1996 Modeling Prehistoric Land Use

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 337

in Northern Ontario. In New Methods,

Ebert, J.I.
2000
Old Problems: Geographic Information The State of the Art in "Induc-
Sys-
tive" Predictive Modeling: Seven Big
tems in Modern Archaeological Research,
edited by H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 252-Mistakes (and Lots of Smaller Ones) .
271. Southern Illinois University In
atPractical Applications of GIS for
Carbondale Occasional Paper No. 23.
Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Kit,
Centre For Archaeological Investiga-
edited by K. L. Wecott and R. J. Bran-
tion, Carbondale, 111. don, pp. 129-134. Taylor and Francis,
Dean,J.S., GJ. Gumerman,J.M. Epstein,Philadelphia.
R.L. Axtell, A.C. Swedlund, M.T. Parker,
Gaffney, V., Z. Stancic, and H. Watson
and S. McCarroll 1996 Moving from Catchments to Cog-
1999 Understanding Anasazi Culture nition: Tentative Steps toward a Larger
Change through Agent-Based Model- Archaeological Context for GIS. In
ing. In Dynamics in Human and Pri- Anthropology, Space and Geographic Infor-
mate Societies, edited by T. Köhler and mation System, edited by M. Aldenderfer
G. Gumerman, pp. 179-205. Oxford and H. Maschner, pp. 132-154. Oxford
University Press, New York. University Press, New York.
Duncan, R.B., and K.A. Beckman Gaffney, V., and P. M. van Leusen
2000 The Application of GIS Pre- 1995 Postscript - GIS, Environmental
dictive Site Location Models within Determinism and Archaeology. In
Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In Archaeology and Geographical Information
Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeolo-Systems: A European Perspective, edited
gists: A Prédictive Modeling kit, edited byby G. Lock and Z. Stancic, pp. 367-
K.L. Wecott and RJ. Brandon, pp. 33-382. Taylor and Francis, London.
58. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia. Gilbert, N.
Ebert, D. 1999 Modeling Sociality: The View
1998 Expanding the Selection of Tools forfrom Europe. In Dynamics in Human
Spatial Analysis: Geostatistics and the Alsand Primate Societies, edited by T. Köhler
Fieldwalking Data. Unpublished Mas- and G. Gumerman, pp. 355-371.
ter's Thesis, Department of Archae- Oxford University Press, New York.
ology, University of Southampton, Goodchild, M.F.
Southampton.
1996 Geographic Information Sys-
2002 The Potential of Geostatistics in tems and Spatial Analysis in the Social
the Analysis of Fieldwalking Data. In Sciences. In New Methods, Old Prob-
Contemporary Themes in Archaeological lems: Geographic Information Systems in
Computing, edited by D.W. Wheatley, Modern Archaeological Research, edited
G. Earl, and S. Poppy, pp. 82-89. Uni-
by H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 241-250.
versity of Southampton Department Southern Illinois University at Car-
of Archaeology Monograph No. 3. bondale Occasional Paper No. 23.
Oxbow Books, Oxford. Centre for Archaeological Investiga-
tion, Carbondale, 111.
2003 Prédictive Modeling in the Manitoba
Model Forest: A Summary of the MbMF Hamilton, S., L. Dalla Bona, and
APMP 1999-2001. Report to the Mani- L. Larcombe
toba Model Forest, Inc., Pine Falls, MB.1 994 Cultural Heritage Resource Predic-

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 • EBERT

uve Modeling Project: Volume 5 Sum-

tifying the Present and Predicting the
mary and Recommendations. CenterPast: Theory,
for Method and Application
Archaeological Resource Prediction,
of Archaeological Predictive Modeling,
Lakehead University, Thunderedited
Bay.by W.J. Judge and L. Sebastian,
Hamilton, S., and L. Larcombe pp. 549-569. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
1994 Cultural Heritage Resource Pre-
dictive Modeling Project: Volume Köhler,
1, T. A.
Introduction to the Research. Center forPutting
1999 Social Sciences Togeth-
Archaeological Resource Prediction,
er Again: An Introduction to the
Lakehead University, ThunderVolume.
Bay. In Dynamics in Human and
Hasenstab, R. Primate Societies, edited by T. Köhler
1996 Settlement as Adaptation: and G. Gumerman, pp. 1-18. Oxford
Vari-
University Press, New York.
ability in Iroquois "Village Site Selec-
tion as Inferred through GIS.Kohler,
In New T.A., and S.C. Parker
1986
Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Predictive Models for Archaeo-
Infor-
logical Resource Location. In Advances
mation Systems in Modern Archaeological
Research, edited by H. D. G. Maschner,
in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol.
pp. 223-241. Southern Illinois 9, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 397-
Univer-
sity at Carbondale Occasional 452. Academic Press, New York.
Paper
No. 23. Centre For Archaeological
Krist, F.J., and D.G. Brown
Investigation, Carbondale, 111. 1994 GIS Modeling of Paleo-Indian
2003 Archaeological PredictivePeriod Caribou Migrations and View-
Modeling Using GIS: Problemsshedsandin Northeastern Lower Michi-
Prospects. Paper presented at the 69th
gan. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Annual Meeting, Society for American
Remote Sensing 60(9) :1 129-1 137.
Archaeology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Kuna, M., and D. Adelsbergerova
Hunt, E.D. 1995 Prehistoric Location Prefer-

1992 Upgrading Site-Catchment Anal- ences: An Application of GIS to the

yses with the Use of GIS: Investigating Vinorsky-Potok Project, Bohemia,
the Settlement Patterns of Horticultur- the Czech Republic. In Archaeology
alists. World Archaeology 24(2): 283-309. and Geographical Information Systems: A
Kamermans, H., and M. Wansleeben European Perspective, edited by G. Lock
1999 Predictive Modeling in Dutch and Z. Stancic, pp. 117-132. Taylor
and Francis, London.
Archaeology, Joining Forces. In New
Techniques for Old Times: Computer Kvamme, K L.
Applications and Quantitative Methods 1985 Determining Empirical Rela-
in Archaeology, edited byJ.A. Barcelo, tionships between the Natural Envi-
I. Briz, and A. Vila, pp. 225-229. Bar ronment and Prehistoric Site Loca-
International Series 757. Tempus tions. In For Concordance in Archaeologi-
Reparatum, Barcelona. cal Analysis: Bridging Data Structure,
Kincaid, C. Quantitative Technique and Theory, edit-
ed by C. Carr, pp. 208-238. Westport
1988 Predictive Modeling and Its
Publishers Ine, Kansas City, MO.
Relationship to Cultural Resource
Management Applications. In Quan- 1988 Development and Testing of

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 339

Quantitative Models. In Quantifying

Archaeological Theory and Moves
Towards Contextualism. In Computer
the Present and Predicting the Past: The-
Applications and Quantitative Methods
ory, Method and Application of Archaeo-
logical Predictive Modeling, edited by
in Archaeology, edited by J. Huggett
WJ. Judge and L. Sebastian, pp.and
325-N. Ryan, pp. 13-18. Bar Interna-
348. Government Printing Office,
tional Series 600. Tempus Reparatum,
Washington, D.C. Glasgow.
Lock, G.R., and T. M. Harris
1990 One-Sample Tests in Regional
1996 Danebury Revisited: An Eng-
Archaeological Analysis: New Possibili-
ties through Computer Technology. Iron Age Hillfort in a Digital
lish
American Antiquity 55 (2) :367-381 Landscape.
. In Anthropology, Space and
1992 A Predictive Site Location Geographic Information Systems, edited
by M. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Mas-
Model on the High Plains: An Exam-
chner, pp. 214-240. Oxford University
ple with an Independent Test. Plains
Press, New York.
Anthropologist 37 (138): 19-40.
Madry, S.L.H., and L. Rakos
1999 Recent Directions and Develop-
1996 Line-of-Sight and Cost-Surface
ments in Geographical Information
Techniques for Regional Research
Systems. Journal of Anthropological
in the Arroux River Valley. In New
Research 7 (2):155-201.
Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Infor-
Kvamme, K.L., and M. A. Jochim mation Systems in Modem Archaeological
1989 The Environmental Basis of Research, edited by H. D. G. Maschner,
Mesolithic Settlement. In The Meso- pp. 104-126. Southern Illinois Univer-
lithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the sity at Carbondale Occasional Paper
Third International Symposium, Edin- No. 23. Centre For Archaeological
burgh 1985, edited by C. Bonsall, Investigation, Carbondale, 111.
pp. 1-12. John Donald Publishers
Marean, C. W., Y Abe, PJ. Nilssen, and
Ltd., Edinburgh. E. C.Stone
Lake, M. W. 2001 Estimating the Minimum Num-
1999 Magical Computer Simulation ber of Skeletal Elements (Mne) in
of Mesolithic Foraging. In Dynamics in Zooarchaeology: A Review and a New
Human and Primate Societies, edited by Image-Analysis Approach. American
T. Köhler and G. Gumerman, pp. 107- Antiquity 66(2): 333-348.
143. Oxford University Press, New York.
Marozas, B.A., andJ.A. Zack
Larcombe, L. 1990 GIS and Archaeological Site
1 994 Cultural Heritage Resource Predic- Location. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
tive Modeling Project: Volume 2, Boreal Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen,
Forest Aboriginal Land Use Patterns: An S.W. Green, and E.B.W. Zubrow,
Evaluation of the Ethnographic Literature. pp. 165-172. Taylor and Francis,
Center for Archaeological Resource London.
Prediction, Lakehead University, Maschner, H.
Thunder Bay.
1996a Geographic Information Sys-
Lock, G. tems in Archaeology. In New Methods,
1995 Archaeological Computing, Old Problems: Geographic Information Sys-

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 • EBERT

Model Building. In Quantifying the

terns in Modern Archaeological Research,
edited by H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 1-21.
Present and Predicting the Past: Theory,
Southern Illinois University at Method
Car- and Application of Archaeo-
bondale Occasional Paper No.logical
23. Predictive Modeling, edited by
Centre For Archaeological Investiga-
W.J. Judge and L. Sebastian, pp. 173-
tion, Carbondale, 111. 255. Government Printing Office,
1996b The Politics of Settlement Washington, D.C.
Choice on the Northwest Coast: Savage, S.H.
Cognition, GIS and Coastal Land- 1990 GIS in Archaeological Research.
scapes. In Anthropology, Space, and Geo-
In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archae-
graphic Information Systems, edited byology, edited by K. M. S. Allen,
H. D. G. Maschner and M. Aldender- S.W. Green, and E.B.W. Zubrow,
fer, pp. 175-189. Oxford University pp. 22-31. Taylor and Francis,
Press, Toronto. London.

Parker, S. Sebastian, L., and W.J. Judge

1985 Predictive Modeling of Site 1988 Predicting the Past:
Settlement Systems Using Multivariate Correlation, Explanation and the
Use of Archaeological Models. In
Logistics. In For Concordance in Archaeo-
logical Analysis: Bridging Data Structure,Quantifying the Present and Predicting
the Past: Theory, Method and Application
Quantitative Technique and Theory, edit-
ed by C. Carr, pp. 173-207. Westportof Archaeological Predictive Modeling,
Publishers, Inc., Kansas City, MO. edited by W.J. Judge and L. Sebastian,
Petch, V., L. Larcombe, D. Ebert, pp. 1-18. Government Printing
D. McLeod, G. Senior, and M. Singer Office, Washington, D.C.
2000 End of Field Season Report: Testing
Spikins, P., C. Conneller, H. Ayestaran,
the Fj Archaeological Predictive Model and B. Scaife
Manitoba Model Forest Inc.
2002 GIS Based Interpolation Applied
Petch, V., L. Larcombe, L. Pettipas, to Distinguishing Occupation Phases
D. Ebert, and G. Senior of Early Prehistoric Sites. Journal of
2000 Manitoba Model Forest Predictive Archaeological Science 29: 1235-1245.
Modeling for Archaeological Site Location.
Stancic, Z., and K.L. Kvamme
Manitoba Model Forest Inc.
1999 Settlement Pattern Modelling
Quesada, E, J. Baena, and C. Blasco through Boolean Overlays of Social
1995 An Application of GIS to In tra- and Environmental Variables. In New
site Spatial Analysis: The Iberian Iron
Techniques for Old Times: Computer
Age Cemetery at El Cigarralejo (Mur- Applications and Quantitative Methods
cia, Spain). In Computer Applications in Archaeology, edited by J. A. Barcelo,
I. Briz, and A. Vila, pp. 231-237. Bar
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,
edited by J. Huggett and N. Ryan, International Series 757. Tempus
Reparatum, Barcelona.
pp. 137-146. Bar International Series
600. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford. van Leusen, P. M.
Rose, M.R., andJ.H. Altschul 1999 Viewshed and Cost Surface
1988 An Overview of Statistical Analysis Using GIS (Cartographic
Method and Theory for Quantitative Modelling in a Cell-Based GIS li). In

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 APPLICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS • 341

Wheatley,D.W.
New Techniques for Old Times: Computer
1993 Going over Old Ground: GIS,
Applications and Quantitative Methods
Archaeological Theory and the Act
in Archaeology, edited byJ.A. Barcelo,
I. Briz, and A. Vila, pp. 215-223. Bar
of Perception. In Computing the Past:
International Series 757. TempusComputing Applications and Quantitative
Reparatum, Barcelona. Methods in Archaeology Caa92, edited by
Vita-Finzi, C, And E. S. Higgs J. Andresen, I. Scollar, and T. Madsen,
pp. 133-138. Aarhus University Press,
1970 Prehistoric Economy in the
Aarhus.
Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site

Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the1995 Cumulative Viewshed Analysis:

Prehistoric Society 36: 1-42. A GIS-Based Method for Investigating
Warren, R.E. Intervisibility, and Its Archaeological
1990a Predictive Modeling in Application. In Archaeology and Geo-
Archaeology: A Primer. In Interpret- graphic Information Systems: A European
ing Space: GIS and Archaeology, editedPerspective, edited by G. Lock and
by K M. S. Allen, S.W. Green, and Z. Stancic, pp. 171-186. Taylor and
Francis, London.
E.B.W. Zubrow, pp. 90-111. Taylor
and Francis, London. 1996a Between the Lines: The Role

1990b Predictive Modeling of of GIS-Based Predictive Modelling in

Archaeological Site Location: A Casethe Interpretation of Extensive Survey
Study in the Midwest. In Interpret- Data. In Interfacing the Past: Computer
ing Space: GIS and Archaeology, editedApplications and Quantitative Methods in
by K. M.S. Allen, S.W. Green, and Archaeology Caa95, edited by H. Kamer-
mans and K. Fennema. vol. 28. Ana-
E.B.W. Zubrow, pp. 201-215. Taylor
and Francis, London. lecta Praehistoica Leidensia, Leiden.
1996b The Use of GIS to Under-
Warren, R.E., and D.L. Asch
2000 A Predictive Model of stand Regional Variation in Earlier
Neolithic Wessex. In New Methods, Old
Archaeological Site Location in the
Eastern Prairie Peninsula. In Practical Problems: Geographic Information Sys-
tems in Archaeological Research, edited
Applications of GIS for Archaeologists:
by H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 75-103.
A Predictive Modeling Kit, edited by
Occasional Paper No. 23. Center
K. L. Wecott and R.J. Brandon, pp. 5-
for Archaeological Investigations,
32. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.
Carbondale, IL.
Weimer, M.B.
Zubrow, E.B.W., andJ.W. Harbaugh
1995 Predictive Modeling and Cultur-
1978 Archaeological Prospecting:
al Resource Management: An Alterna-
Kriging and Simulation. In Simula-
tive View from the Plains Periphery.
tion Studies in Archaeology, edited by
In Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology
I. Hodder, pp. 109-122. Cambridge
and the Postprocessual Critique, edited by
University Press, Cambridge.
P. Duke and M.C. Wilson, pp. 90-109.
The University of Alabama Press, Manuscript received May 31, 2004.
Tuscaloosa, AL. Final revisions October 8, 2004.

Journal Canadien d'Archéologie 28 (2004)

This content downloaded from

180.252.171.254 on Sun, 25 Feb 2024 04:22:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms