CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

What Do the Patterns Mean? Archaeological Distributions and Bias in Survey Data

Cowley, David C.·2016·Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9_7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9_7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Armit, I. and Ralston, I. B. M. (1997). The Iron Age. In K. J. Edwards and I. B. M. Ralston (Eds). Scotland: Environment and Archaeology, 8000 BC – Ad 1000. Chichester: Wiley.
  2. Bennett, R., Cowley, D. and De Laet, V. (2014). The data explosion: tackling the taboo of automatic feature recognition in airborne survey data. Antiquity 88, pp. 896-905. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00050766. · DOI
  3. Bennett, R., Welham, K., Hill, R. and Ford, A. (2013). Using lidar as part of a multi-sensor approach to archaeological survey and interpretation. In Opitz, R. S. and Cowley, D. C. (Eds). Interpreting archaeological topography: airborne laser scanning, 3D data and interpretation. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 197-205.
  4. Campana, S. (2011). ‘Total Archaeology’ to reduce the need for Rescue Archaeology: The BREBEMI Project (Italy). In Cowley, D.C. (Ed.). Remote sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Brussels: EAC/Archaeolingua. pp. 33-41.
  5. Campana, S. and Dabas, M. (2011). Archaeological Impact Assessment: The BREBEMI Project (Italy). Archaeological Prospection 18: pp. 139-148. doi: 10.1002/arp.407. · DOI
  6. Cowley, D.C. (1991). Some Burnt Mounds in Mid-Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Series, Volume XIX, pp. 119-121.
  7. Cowley, D.C. (2002). A case study in the analysis of patterns of aerial reconnaissance in a lowland area of southwest Scotland. Archaeological Prospection 9(4), pp. 255-65. · DOI
  8. Cowley, D.C. (2009). The Traprain environs in a regional perspective. In Haselgrove, C. (Ed.). The Traprain Law Environs Project - Fieldwork and Excavations 2000-2004. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. pp. 205-23.
  9. Cowley, D.C. (2011). Remote sensing for archaeology and heritage management – site discovery, interpretation and registration. In Cowley, D.C. (Ed.). Remote sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Brussels: EAC/Archaeolingua. pp. 43-55.
  10. Cowley, D.C. (2012). Newstead and environs from the air. In Hunter, F. and Keppie, L. (Eds). A Roman Frontier Post and its People, Newstead 1911-2011. Edinburgh: National Museums of Scotland. pp. 41-49.
  11. Cowley, D. C. (2013). What kind of gaps? Some approaches to understanding bias in remote sensing data. Archeologia Aerea 7(13), pp. 76-88.
  12. Cowley, D. C. (2015). Aerial Photographs and Aerial Reconnaissance for Landscape Studies. In Chavarria Arnau, A. and Reynolds, A. (Eds). Detecting and Understanding Historic Landscapes. Mantova: Post-Classical Archaeologies. pp. 37-66.
  13. Cowley, D. C. (2016). Creating the cropmark archaeological record in East Lothian, southeast Scotland. In Crellin, R., Fowler, C. and Tipping, R. (Eds). Prehistory without Borders: Prehistoric Archaeology of the Tyne-Forth Region. Oxford: Oxbow.
  14. Cowley, D. C. and Dickson, A. L. (2007). Clays and ‘difficult’ soils in eastern and southern Scotland: dealing with the gaps. In Mills, J. and Palmer, R. (Eds). Populating Clay Landscape. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 43-54.
  15. Cowley, D.C. and Gilmour, S. M. (2005). Some observations on the nature of aerial survey. In Brophy, K. and Cowley, D. (Eds). From the Air – understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 50-63.
  16. Crawford, O. G. S. (1930). Editorial Notes. Antiquity IV, pp. 273-8.
  17. Crawford, O. G. S. (1939). Air Reconnaissance of Roman Scotland. Antiquity XIII, pp. 280-92. · DOI
  18. Crow, J. and Turner, S. (2009). Silvri and the Thracian hinterland of Istanbul: an historic landscape. Anatolian Studies 59, pp. 167-81. · DOI
  19. De Guio, A. (2015). Cropping for a better future: Vegetation Indices in Archaeology. In Chavarria Arnau, A. and Reynolds, A. (Eds). Detecting and Understanding Historic Landscapes. Mantova: Post-Classical Archaeologies. pp. 109-52.
  20. Driscoll, S. (1997). A Pictish settlement in north-east Fife: the Scottish Field School of Archaeology excavations at Easter Kinnear. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 3, pp. 74-118.
  21. Evans, R. and Jones, R. J. A. (1977). Crop marks and soils at two archaeological sites in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, pp. 63-76. · DOI
  22. Fairweather, A. D. and Ralston, I. B. M. (1993). The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie, Grampian Region, Scotland. Antiquity 67, pp. 313–23. · DOI
  23. Featherstone, R. and Bewley, R. (2000). Recent aerial reconnaissance in North Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia 65, pp. 13-26.
  24. Fitch, S., Gaffney, V., Gearey, B., Ramsey, E. (2011). Between the Lines – enhancing methodologies for the exploration of extensive, inundated palaeolandscapes. In Cowley, D.C. (Ed.). Remote sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Brussels: EAC/Archaeolingua. pp. 173-204.
  25. Halliday, S. (1990). Patterns of fieldwork and the distribution of burnt mounds in Scotland. In Buckley, V. (compiler). Burnt Offerings – International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology. Dublin: Wordwell. pp. 60-1
  26. Halliday, S. (2011). Pattern, perception and preconception: recognizing regionality in Scottish prehistory. In Jones, A. M. and Kirkham, G. (Eds). Beyond the Core – Reflections on regionality in prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 19-32.
  27. Halliday, S. (2013). I Walked, I Saw, I surveyed, but what did I see?… and what did I survey. In Opitz, R.S. and Cowley, D.C. (Eds). Interpreting archaeological topography: airborne laser scanning, 3D data and interpretation. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 63- 75.
  28. Hanson, W. S. (2005). Sun, sand and see: creating bias in the archaeological record. In Brophy, K. and Cowley, D. (Eds). From the Air – understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 73-93.
  29. Haselgrove, C. (Ed.) (2009). The Traprain Law Environs Project - Fieldwork and Excavations 2000-2004. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
  30. Huggett, J. (2013). Disciplinary issues: challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archaeology. In Papadopoulos, K., Chrysanthi, A., Murietta-Flores, P., Romanowska, I., Earl, G., Sly, T. and Wheatley, D. (Eds). Proceedings of the 40th International Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Amsterdam: Archaeopress. pp. 13-24.
  31. Jones, R. H. (2005). The advantages of bias in Roman Studies. In Brophy, K. and Cowley, D. (Eds). From the Air – understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 86-93.
  32. Lasaponara, R. and Masini, N. (2012). Image enhancement, feature extraction and geospatial analysis in an archaeological perspective. In Lasaponara, R. and Masini, N. (Eds). Satellite Remote Sensing – A new Tool for Archaeology. New York: Springer. pp. 17-63. · DOI
  33. Laurie, T. (2004). Springs, Woods and Transhumance: Reconstructing a Pennine Landscape during Later Prehistory. Landscapes 5(1), pp 73-103. · DOI
  34. Macinnes, L. (1984). Settlement and economy: East Lothian and the Tyne-Forth province. In Miket, R. and Burgess, C. (Eds). Between and beyond the Walls: Essays on the Prehistory of Northern Britain in Honour of George Jobey. Edinburgh: John Donald. pp. 176-98.
  35. Maynard, D. (1993). Burnt mounds around a pipeline in Dumfries and Galloway. Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Series 3, LXVII, pp. 33-52.
  36. Neubauer, Trinks, Salisbury, Einwögerer: Neubauer, W., Trinks, I., Salisbury, R. and Einwögerer, C. (Eds) (2013). Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings of the 10 th International Conference – Vienna, May 29 th – June 2 nd 2013. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
  37. Oakey, M. 2005. Patterns of aerial photography in the Central Midlands of England. In Brophy, K.and Cowley, D. (Eds). From the Air – understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 141-50.
  38. Powlesland, D. (2011). Identifying the unimaginable – Managing the unmanageable. In Cowley, D.C. (Ed.). Remote sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Brussels: EAC/Archaeolingua. pp. 17-32.
  39. St Joseph, J. K. S. (1976). Air reconnaissance of Roman Scotland 1939-75. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 4, pp. 1-28. · DOI
  40. St Joseph, J. K. S. (1977). Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain 1973-76. Journal of Roman Studies LXVII, pp. 125-61. · DOI
  41. Turner, S. and Crow, J. (2010). Unlocking historic landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean: two pilot studies using Historic Landscape Characterisation. Antiquity 84, pp. 216-29. · DOI
  42. Verhoeven, G. (2009). Beyond Conventional Boundaries. New Technologies, Methodologies, and Procedures for the Benefit of Aerial Archaeological Data Acquisition and Analysis. PhD thesis Ghent University.
  43. Whimster, R. (1983). Aerial reconnaissance from Cambridge: a retrospective view 1945-80. In Maxwell, G. S. (Ed.). The impact of aerial reconnaissance on Archaeology. London: Council for British Archaeology. pp. 92-105.
  44. Wilson, D. R. (2005). Bias in aerial reconnaissance. In Brophy, K. and Cowley, D. (Eds). From the Air – understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud: Tempus. pp. 64-72.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 17

Metadata

Authors
Cowley, D. C.
Venue
Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2016
Pages
147-170
ISSN
  • 2199-0956
  • 2199-0964
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9_7
Cited by
17
References
0
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Do the Patterns Mean? Archaeological Distributions and Bias in Survey Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9_7
The paper
Cowley, D. C. (2016). What Do the Patterns Mean? Archaeological Distributions and Bias in Survey Data. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9_7