CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landscape Phenomenology, GIS and the Role of Affordance

Gillings, Mark·2012·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-012-9137-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10816-012-9137-4

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • GIS literature shows little evidence of obligation to consider implications of subsequent developments in phenomenological thinking or engage in dialogue with practitioners and theorists effecting such.

    “there is certainly little evidence in the GIS literature of any concomitant obligation to consider the implications for simple, binary-viewshed generation, of subsequent developments in phenomenological thinking (a good example being the increasing importance of Merleau-Ponty in Tilley's oeuvre) or engage in dialogue with the practitioners and theorists effecting such (Gillings 2012).”

    From Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility (2017) · cites this paper as Gillings 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Aldenderfer, M., & Maschner, H. D. G. (Eds.). (1996). Anthropology, space and geographic information systems. New York: OUP.
  2. Barrett, J. C., & Ko, I. (2009). A phenomenology of landscape: a crisis in British landscape archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(3), 275–294. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bender, B. (Ed.). (1993). Landscape: politics and perspectives. Oxford: Berg.
  4. Brück, J. (2005). Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12(1), 45–72. · DOI
  5. Chadwick, A. (2004). ‘Geographies of sentience’—an introduction to space, place and time. In A. Chadwick (Ed.), Stories from the landscape: archaeologies of inhabitation (pp. 1–32). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Int. Ser. 1238. · DOI
  6. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. · DOI
  7. Cummings, V. (2008). Virtual reality, visual envelopes, and characterizing landscape. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 285–290). California: Left Coast Press.
  8. Fleming, A. (1999). Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18, 119–125. · DOI
  9. Frieman, C., & Gillings, M. (2007). Seeing is perceiving? World Archaeology, 39(1), 4–16. · DOI
  10. Gaffney, V., & van Leusen, M. (1995). Postscript: GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology. In G. Lock & Z. Stančič (Eds.), Archaeology and geographic information systems: a European perspective (pp. 367–382). London: Taylor & Francis.
  11. Gaffney, V., Stančič, Z., & Watson, H. (1996). Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps towards a larger archaeological context for GIS. In M. Aldenderfer & H. Maschner (Eds.), Anthropology, space and geographic information systems (pp. 132–154). New York: OUP.
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Psychology Press.
  13. Gillings, M. (1998). Embracing uncertainty and challenging dualism in the GIS-based study of a palaeo-flood plain. European Journal of Archaeology, 1(1), 117–144. · DOI
  14. Gillings, M. (2000). The utility of the GIS approach in the collection, management, storage and analysis of surface survey data. In J. Bintliff, M. Kuna, & N. Venclova (Eds.), The future of surface artefact survey in Europe (pp. 105–120). Sheffield: SAP.
  15. Gillings, M. (2008). The Ecsegfalva landscape: affordance and inhabitation. In A. Whittle (Ed.), The early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés (pp. 31–46). Budapest: Varia Archaeologia Hungarica.
  16. Gillings, M. (2011). Chorography, phenomenology and the antiquarian tradition. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 21(1), 53–64. · DOI
  17. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. · DOI
  18. Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies, 15, 205–217. · DOI
  19. Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17, 154–177. · DOI
  20. Hopkinson, T. (2007). The middle Palaeolithic leaf points of Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. BAR Int. Ser. · DOI
  21. Hunt, E. D. (1992). Upgrading site catchment analyses with the use of GIS: investigating the settlement patterns of horticulturalists. World Archaeology, 24(2), 283–309. · DOI
  22. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Ingold, T. (1992). Culture and the perception of the environment. In E. Croll & D. Parkin (Eds.), Bush base, forest farm (pp. 39–56). London: Routledge.
  24. Ingold, T. (2005). Comments on Christopher Tilley: the materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 38(2), 122–129. · DOI
  25. Johnson, M. (2006). On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues, 13(2), 117–132. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Jones, K. S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107–114. · DOI
  27. Judge, W. J., & Sebastian, L. (Eds.). (1988). Quantifying the present and predicting the past: theory, method and application of archaeological predictive modelling. Denver: US Department of the Interior.
  28. Knappett, C. (2005). Thinking through material culture: an interdisciplinary perspective (archaeology, culture, and society). Philadelphia: UPP. · DOI
  29. Lake, M. (2007). Viewing space. World Archaeology, 39(1), 1–3. · DOI
  30. Lock, G., & Stančič, Z. (Eds.). (1995). Archaeology and geographic information systems: a European perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.
  31. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. Proc Graph Interface, 2000, 179–186.
  32. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
  33. Sadler, E., & Given, L. M. (2007). Affordance theory: a framework for graduate students’ information behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 115–141. · DOI
  34. Sturt, F. (2006). Local knowledge is required: a rythmanalytical approach to the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic of the East Anglian Fenland, UK. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, 1, 119–139. · DOI
  35. Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Thomas, J. (2008). Archaeology, landscape, and dwelling. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 300–306). California: Left Coast Press.
  37. Tilley, C. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
  38. Tilley, C. (2004). The materiality of stone. Oxford: Berg.
  39. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173–187. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Ullah, I. (2011). A GIS method for assessing the zone of human-environmental impact around archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 623–632. · DOI
  41. Wansleeben, M., & Verhart, L. (1997). Geographical information systems: methodological progress and theoretical decline? Archaeological Dialogues, 4(1), 53–70. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Webster, D. S. (1999). The concept of affordance and GIS: a note on Llobera (1996). Antiquity, 73, 915–917. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Wickstead, H. (2009). The uber archaeologist: GIS and the male gaze revisited. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(2), 249–271. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gillings, M.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-06-21
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
601-611
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-012-9137-4
Cited by
94
References
3
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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