Archaeology has traditionally been defined relative to anthropology as anthropology of the past but an alternative viewpoint defines archaeology as geography of the past. As with other geographically-based fields, archaeological research emphasizes spatial information, uses a highly visual approach to analysis and communication, incorporates a thematic structure in the identification of objects and geographic phenomena, and is built on the foundation of an environmental database, often in the form of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) or a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) (Gillings & Mattingly, 1999). GIS provides the means to simultaneously integrate multiple layers of spatial information for an interpretation of the historic landscape based on observations of the modern landscape (Wescott, 2000). With archaeological dating, a specific timeframe can then be established in which to place this data (Dark, 1995).
Keywords: Granikos River Valley
[...] The case study at the Granikos River Valley in northwestern Turkey details the methodology of the topographical survey of Graeco-Persian burial mounds in the region, the analysis of their distribution with a GIS, and potential GIS applications for future research. Commercial GIS Shortfalls The goal of using a GIS can be stated in a variety of ways but the common thread between them is the collection, storing, and manipulation or analysis of spatial data (Burrough & McDonnell, 2000). As such, GIS are composed of three major components: the spatial database component which is responsible for storing spatial, topological, and attribute information related to geographic phenomena; the measurement and analysis component that carries out data transformations, spatial analyses, and modeling functions; and the visualization component that displays the results of queries and spatial or attribute analyses in the form of maps and other graphics (Wheatley & Gillings, 2002). [...]
[...] In Gillings, Mattingly, & van Dalen (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology (pp. 1-4). Oxford: Oxbow Books. Goodchild, M. (1996). Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis in the Social Sciences. In Aldenderfer & Maschner (Eds.), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems (pp. 241-250). New York: Oxford University Press. Green, S. (1990). Approaching Archaeological Space. In Allen, Green, & Zubrow (Eds.), Interpreting Space (pp. 3-8). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis Inc. Hageman, J., & Bennett, D. (2000). Construction of Digital Elevation Models for Archaeological Applications. [...]
[...] A truly 3-D GIS with a continuous volumetric data structure and appropriate analytical functions would allow the GPR data to be integrated and analyzed with other relevant data, most importantly the DEM. Excavation Excavations at burial mound locations will yield three-dimensional burial chamber data or at least the location of the sarcophagus within the burial mound. For sites that are not excavated but contain burials as seen on the GPR imagery, the imagery, itself, can be used as three-dimensional burial data since it will be of high enough resolution to determine the 3-D shape and location of the burial within the mound (Scollar, 1990). [...]
[...] Predictive Modelling of Archaeological Site Location: A Case Study in the Midwest. In Allen, Green, & Zubrow (Eds.), Interpreting Space (pp. 201-215). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis Inc. Warren, R., & Asch, D. (2000). A Predictive Model of Archaeological Site Location in the Eastern Prairie Peninsula. In Wescott & Brandon (Eds.), Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists (pp. 5-32). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Inc. Wescott, K. (2000). Introduction. In Wescott & Brandon (Eds.), Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists (pp. [...]
[...] Given a position on a landscape and a height of observation, a viewshed analysis produces all locations that are within line-of-sight from the observation location. If any object or land rises above the line-of-sight between two points, the target location is not within the viewshed of the observation location. Since ground cover today is presumably similar to the ground cover in antiquity, the line-of-sight analysis should provide reasonable results for the ancient line-of-sight as well (Madry & Rakos, 1996). Because landscapes have more features than simply the terrain, however, a line-of-sight does not necessarily imply visibility, i.e. [...]
using our reader.