CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories

Verhagen, Philip·2018·Natural Science in Archaeology
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_2

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The DEM is often used as an error-free model of the topography in archaeological LCP studies.

    “In particular, the digital elevation model (DEM), which forms the basis of the majority of archaeological LCP studies (Herzog, 2010;Verhagen, 2018), is often used as an error-free model of the topography (Wechsler & Kroll, 2006).”

    From Probabilistic modelling for incorporating uncertainty in least cost path results: a postdictive roman road case study (2021) · cites this paper as Verhagen, 2018

    Section 2.3.3 (page unavailable) says slope is among the most common cost factors in archaeological least-cost path analysis and discusses the accuracy of the DEMs used. This supports the DEM’s importance, but does not establish that it forms the basis of a majority of studies. The separate claim that DEMs are treated as error-free is attributed to Wechsler and Kroll, not Verhagen. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Becker KM, Altschul JH (2008) Path finding: the archaeology of trails and trail systems. In: Altschul JH, Rankin AG (eds) Fragile patterns: the archaeology of the western Papaguería. SRI Press, Tucson, pp 419–446
  2. Bell T, Lock G (2000) Topographic and cultural influences on walking the Ridgeway in later prehistoric times. In: Lock G (ed) Beyond the map. Archaeology and spatial technologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 85–100
  3. Bevan A (2013) Travel and interaction in the Greek and Roman world. A review of some computational modelling approaches. In: Dunn S, Mahoney S (eds) The digital classicist 2013. Wiley-Blackwell, London
  4. Bevan A, Conolly J (2006) Multiscalar approaches to settlement analysis. In: Lock G, Molyneaux BL (eds) Confronting scale in archaeology. Issues of theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 217–324
  5. Bevan A, Wilson A (2013) Models of settlement hierarchy based on partial evidence. J Archaeol Sci 40:2415–2427 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bourgeois Q (2013) Monuments on the horizon. The formation of the barrow landscape throughout the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC. Sidestone Press, Leiden
  7. Chiarcos C, Lang M, Verhagen P (2016) IT-assisted exploration of excavation reports using natural language processing in the archaeological research process. In: Campana S, Scopigno R, Carpentiero G, Cirillo M (eds) CAA 2015. Keep the revolution going. Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in Archaeology, Siena. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 87–94
  8. Cooper A, Green C (2015) Embracing the complexities of ‘big data’ in archaeology: the case of the English Landscape and Identities project. J Archaeol Method Theory 23(1):271–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9240-4 · DOI
  9. Čučković Z (2015) Exploring intervisibility networks: a case study from Bronze and Iron Age Istria (Croatia and Slovenia). In: Giligny F, Djindjian F, Costa L, Moscati P, Robert S (eds) CAA2014. 21st century archaeology. Concepts, methods and tools. Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 469–478 · DOI · Paper page
  10. De Montis A, Caschili S (2012) Nuraghes and landscape planning: coupling viewshed with complex network analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 105:315–324 · DOI
  11. Dijkstra E (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271 · DOI
  12. Ducke B, Kroefges PC (2008) From points to areas: constructing territories from archaeological site patterns using an enhanced Xtent model. In: Posluschny A, Lambers K, Herzog I (eds) Layers of perception. 35th International conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), April 2007, Berlin, Germany. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp 245–251
  13. Durand-Dastès F, Favory F, Fiches JL, Mathian H, Pumain D, Raynaud C, Sanders L, van der Leeuw S (1998) Des oppida aux métropoles. Archéologues et géographes en vallée du Rhône. Anthropos, Paris
  14. Ejstrud B (2005) Cost surface analysis and ancient roads: a comparison. In: Berger JF, Bertoncello F, Braemer F, Davtian G, Gazenbeek M (eds) Temps et espaces de l’Homme en société, analyses et modèles spatiaux en archéologie, Actes des XXVe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 21–23 Octobre 2004. Éditions APDCA, Sophia-Antipolis, pp 135–139
  15. Fábrega-Álvarez P, Parcero-Oubiña C (2007) Proposals for an archaeological analysis of pathways and movement. Archeologia e Calcolatori 18:121–140
  16. Favory F, Girardot JJ, Nuninger L, Tourneux FP (1999) Archaeomedes II: une étude de la dynamique de l’habitat rural en France méridionale, dans la longue durée (800 av. J.-C. – 1600 ap. J.-C.) AGER 9:15–35
  17. Findlow FJ, Ericson JE (eds) (1980) Catchment analysis. Essays on prehistoric resource space. University of California, Los Angeles
  18. Fisher PF (1992) First experiments in viewshed uncertainty: simulating the fuzzy viewshed. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58:345–352
  19. Fiz I, Orengo H (2008) Simulating communication routes in mediterranean alluvial plains. In: Posluschny A, Lambers K, Herzog I (eds) Layers of perception. 35th International conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), April 2007, Berlin, Germany. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp 316–321
  20. Fleming A (2006) Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Camb Archaeol J 16:267–280 · DOI
  21. Fovet E (2005) Dynamique spatiale du peuplement et analyse des ressources agro-pastorales dans le bassin de Combas et le vallon de l’Aigalade (Gard, France), du Bronze final au bas Moyen Age. In: Berger JF, Bertoncello F, Braemer F, Davtian G, Gazenbeek M (eds) Temps et espaces de l’Homme en société, analyses et modèles spatiaux en archéologie. Actes des XXVe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 21–23 Octobre 2004. Éditions APDCA, Sophia-Antipolis, pp 499–503
  22. Fovet E, Zakšek K (2014) Path network modelling and network of aggregated settlements: a case study in Languedoc (southeastern France). In: Polla S, Verhagen P (eds) Computational approaches to movement in archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 43–72
  23. Gaffney V, Stančič Z (1991) GIS approaches to regional analysis: a case study of the island of Hvar. Znanstveni institut Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana
  24. Gaffney V, van Leusen M (1995) Postscript-GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology: a parallel text. In: Lock G, Stančič Z (eds) Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 367–382
  25. Gandini C, Favory F, Nuninger L (eds) (2012) Settlement patterns, production and trades from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages, ARCHAEDYN, Seven millennia of territorial dynamics, final conference, Dijon, 23–25 June 2008. Archaeopress, Oxford · DOI
  26. Gietl R, Doneus M, Fera M (2008) Cost distance analysis in an alpine environment: comparison of different cost surface modules. In: Posluschny A, Lambers K, Herzog I (eds) Layers of perception. 35th International conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), April 2007, Berlin, Germany. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, p 342 & CD-ROM
  27. Groenhuijzen MR, Verhagen P (2015) Exploring the dynamics of transport in the Dutch limes. eTopoi J Anc Stud Spec 4:25–47
  28. Hacıgüzeller P (2012) GIS, critique, representation and beyond. J Soc Archaeol 12:245–263 · DOI
  29. Hasenstab RJ (1983) A preliminary cultural resource sensitivity analysis for flood control facilities construction in the Passaic River basin of New Jersey. US Army Corps of Engineers, Marietta, GA
  30. Herzog I (2013) Theory and practice of cost functions. In: Contreras F, Farjas M, Melero FJ (eds) Fusion of cultures, Proceedings of the 38th annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology, Granada, Spain, April 2010. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 375–382
  31. Higgs ES, Vita-Finzi C (1972) Prehistoric economy: a territorial approach. In: Higgs ES (ed) Papers in economic prehistory. Studies by members and associates of the British Academy major research project in the early history of agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 27–36
  32. Huggett J (2013) Disciplinary issues: challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archaeology. In: Earl G, Sly T, Chrysanthi A, Murrieta-Flores P, Papadopoulos C, Romanowka I, Wheatley D (eds) Archaeology in the digital era. Papers from the 40th annual conference of computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March, vol 2012. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 13–24
  33. Judge JW, Sebastian L (eds) (1988) Quantifying the present and predicting the past: theory, method and application of archaeological predictive modelling. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver
  34. Kohler TA, van der Leeuw S (2007) Model-based archaeology of socionatural systems. School of Advanced Research, Santa Fe
  35. Kvamme KL (1984) Models of prehistoric site location near Pinyon Canyon, Colorado. In: Condie CJ (ed) Papers of the Philmont conference on the archaeology of northeastern New Mexico. New Mexico Archaeological Council, Albuquerque, pp 349–370
  36. Kvamme KL (1999) Recent directions and developments in geographic information systems. J Archaeol Res 7:153–201 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Llobera M (2000) Understanding movement: a pilot model towards the sociology of movement. In: Lock G (ed) Beyond the map. Archaeology and spatial technologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 65–84
  38. Llobera M (2007a) Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeol 39:51–69 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Llobera M (2007b) Modeling visibility through vegetation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21:799–810 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Lock G, Kormann M, Pouncett J (2014) Visibility and movement: towards a GIS-based integrated approach. In: Polla S, Verhagen P (eds) Computational approaches to movement in archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 23–42
  41. Loots L, Nackaerts K, Waelkens M (1999) Fuzzy viewshed analysis of the Hellenistic city defence system at Sagalassos, Turkey. In: Dingwall L, Exon S, Gaffney V, Laflin S, van Leusen M (eds) Archaeology in the age of the internet. CAA97. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Proceedings of the 25th anniversary conference, University of Birmingham, April 1997. Archaeopress, Oxford, p 82 & CD-ROM
  42. McCoy MD, Ladefoged TN (2009) New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology. J Archaeol Res 17:263–295 · DOI
  43. Mlekuž D (2014) Exploring the topography of movement. In: Polla S, Verhagen P (eds) Computational approaches to movement in archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 5–22
  44. Murrieta-Flores P (2014) Developing computational approaches for the study of movement: assessing the role of visibility and landscape markers in terrestrial navigation during Iberian late prehistory. In: Polla S, Verhagen P (eds) Computational approaches to movement in archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 99–132
  45. Orton C (2000) Sampling in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  46. Robb J, van Hove D (2003) Gardening, foraging and herding: neolithic land use and social territories in Southern Italy. Antiquity 77:241–254 · DOI
  47. Ruestes Bitrià C (2007) A multi-technique GIS visibility analysis for studying visual control of an Iron Age landscape. Internet Archaeology 23. 10.11141/ia.23.4 · DOI
  48. Ruggles CLN, Medyckyj-Scot DJ (1996) Site location, landscape visibility, and symbolic astronomy: a Scottish case study. In: Maschner HDG (ed) New methods, old problems: geographic information systems in modern archaeological research. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, pp 127–146
  49. Sevenant M, Antrop M (2007) Settlement models, land use and visibility in rural landscapes: two case studies in Greece. Landsc Urban Plan 80:362–374 · DOI
  50. Thomas J (1993) The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In: Bender B (ed) Landscape, politics and perspectives. Berg, Oxford, pp 19–48
  51. Thomas J (2001) Archaeologies of place and landscape. In: Hodder I (ed) Archaeological theory today. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp 165–186
  52. Thomas J (2004) Archaeology and modernity. Routledge, London · DOI · Paper page
  53. Tilley C (2004) The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology 1. Berg, Oxford
  54. Tilley C (2008) Body and image: explorations in landscape phenomenology 2. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA
  55. Trifković V (2006) Persons and landscapes: shifting scales of landscape archaeology. In: Lock G, Molyneaux BL (eds) Confronting scale in archaeology. Issues of theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 217–324
  56. Tschan AP, Raczkowski W, Latalowa M (2000) Perception and viewshed: are they mutually inclusive? In: Lock G (ed) Beyond the map. Archaeology and spatial technologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 28–48
  57. van der Leeuw S, Favory F, Fiches JL (eds) (2003) Archéologie et systèmes socio-environnementaux. Études multiscalaires sur la vallée du Rhône dans le programme Archaeomedes. CNRS Éditions, Paris
  58. van Leusen PM (2002) Pattern to process. Methodological investigations into the formation and interpretation of spatial patterns in archaeological landscapes. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen
  59. Verhagen P (2007) Case studies in archaeological predictive modelling. Leiden University Press, Leiden · DOI · Paper page
  60. Verhagen P (2012) Biting off more than we can chew? The current and future role of digital techniques in landscape archaeology. In: Kluiving SJ, Guttman-Bond E (eds) Landscape archaeology between art and science. From a multi- to an interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 309–320 · DOI
  61. Verhagen P, Jeneson K (2012) A Roman puzzle. Trying to find the Via Belgica with GIS. In: Chrysanthi A, Murrieta-Flores P, Papadopoulos C (eds) Thinking beyond the tool. Archaeological computing and the interpretive process. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 123–130
  62. Verhagen P, Nuninger L, Tourneux FP, Bertoncello F, Jeneson K (2013a) Introducing the human factor in predictive modelling: a work in progress. In: Earl G, Sly T, Chrysanthi A, Murrieta-Flores P, Papadopoulos C, Romanowka I, Wheatley D (eds) Archaeology in the digital era. Papers from the 40th annual conference of computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March 2012. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 379–388 · DOI
  63. Verhagen P, Brughmans T, Nuninger L, Bertoncello F (2013b) The long and winding road. Combining least cost paths and network analysis techniques for settlement location analysis and predictive modelling. In: Earl G, Sly T, Chrysanthi A, Murrieta-Flores P, Papadopoulos C, Romanowka I, Wheatley D (eds) Archaeology in the digital era. Papers from the 40th annual conference of computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March 2012. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 357–366
  64. Verhagen P, Nuninger L, Bertoncello F, Castrorao Barba A (2016) Estimating the “memory of landscape” to predict changes in archaeological settlement patterns. In: Campana S, Scopigno R, Carpentiero G, Cirillo M (eds) CAA 2015. Keep the revolution going. Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in Archaeology, Siena. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 623–636
  65. Wagtendonk A, Verhagen P, Jeneson K, Soetens S, de Kleijn M (2009) Past in place: the role of geo-ICT in present-day archaeology. In: Scholten HJ, van de Velde R, van Manen N (eds) Geospatial technology and the role of location within science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 59–86 · DOI
  66. Wheatley D (1993) Going over old ground: GIS, archaeological theory and the act of perception. In: Andresen J, Madsen T, Scollar I (eds) Computing the past. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. CAA92. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp 133–138
  67. Wheatley D (1995) Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In: Lock G, Stančič Z (eds) Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 171–185
  68. Wheatley D (1996) Between the lines: the role of GIS-based predictive modelling in the interpretation of extensive survey data. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 28:275–292
  69. Wheatley D, Gillings M (2000) Vision, perception and GIS: developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. In: Lock G (ed) Beyond the map. Archaeology and spatial technologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–27
  70. Whitley TG, Burns G (2008) Conditional GIS surfaces and their potential for archaeological predictive modelling. In: Posluschny A, Lambers K, Herzog I (eds) Layers of perception. 35th International conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), April 2007, Berlin, Germany. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp 292–298
  71. Whitley TG, Hicks LM (2003) A geographic information systems approach to understanding potential prehistoric and historic travel corridors. Southeast Archaeol 22:77–91
  72. Whitley TG, Moore G, Goel G, Jackson D (2010) Beyond the marsh: settlement choice, perception and spatial decision-making on the Georgia coastal plain. In: Frischer B, Crawford J, Kollers D (eds) CAA 2009. Making history interactive. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Proceedings of the 37th conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 380–390
  73. Wilcke WX (2015) ARIADNE D16.1: first report on data mining. VU University, Amsterdam
  74. Wurzer G, Kowarik K, Reschreiter H (2015) Agent-based modeling and simulation in archaeology. Springer, Cham · DOI
  75. Zakšek K, Fovet E, Nuninger L, Pobodnikar T (2008) Path modelling and settlement pattern. In: Posluschny A, Lambers K, Herzog I (eds) Layers of perception. 35th International conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), April 2007, Berlin, Germany. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp 309–315

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Verhagen, P.
Venue
Natural Science in Archaeology
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2017-12-05
Pages
11-25
ISSN
1613-9712
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_2
Cited by
52
References
12
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review