CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Life on a Pixel: Challenges in the Development of Digital Methods Within an “Interpretive” Landscape Archaeology Framework

Llobera, Marcos·2012·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-012-9139-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10816-012-9139-2

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Gibson and Ingold had less in mind the modelling of archaeological records in relation to the environment than the sociological aspects of the propositional character of the landscape in relation to its organisms.

    “It is rapidly glossed over that Gibson and Ingold had less in mind the modelling of archaeological records in relation to the environment than the sociological aspects of the propositional character of the landscape in relation to its organisms (Llobera 2012; Lock and Pouncett 2017).”

    From From landscape affordances to landscape connectivity: contextualizing an archaeology of human ecology (2020) · cites this paper as Llobera 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Barrett, J. C. (1994). Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.
  2. Barrett, J. C. (2006). Archaeology as the investigation of the contexts of humanity. In D. Papaconstatinou (Ed.), Deconstructing context: a critical approach to archaeological practice (pp. 194–211). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
  3. 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
  4. Bender, B., Hamilton, S., Tilley, C., & Anderson, E. (2007). Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Brantingham, P. J. (2006). Measuring forager mobility. Current Anthropology, 47(3), 435–450. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brück, J. (2005). Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12(1), 45–72. · DOI
  8. Chapman, H. P. (2003). Rudston “Cursus A”—engaging with a Neolithic monument in its landscape setting using GIS. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 22, 345–356. · DOI
  9. Chapman, H. P. (2005). Rethinking the “cursus problem”—investigating the Neolithic landscape archaeology of Rudston, East Yorkshire, UK using GIS. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 71, 159–170. · DOI
  10. Chapman, H. P., & Gearey, B. R. (2000). Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: some comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity, 74, 316–319. · DOI
  11. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cummings, V. (2008). Virtual reality, visual envelopes and characterizing landscape. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 285–290). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  13. Cummings, V., Jones, A., & Watson, A. (2002). Divided places: phenomenology and asymmetry in the monuments of the Black Mountains, Southeast Wales. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12, 57–70. · DOI
  14. D'Andrade, R. G., Shweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In Culture theory: essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. De Reu, J., Bourgeois, J., De Smedt, P., Zwertvaegher, A., Antrop, M., Bats, M., et al. (2011). Measuring the relative topographic position of archaeological sites in the landscape, a case study on the Bronze Age barrows in northwest Belgium. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(12), 3435–3446. · DOI
  16. Duncan, S. L. (2006). Mapping whose reality? Geographic information systems (GIS) and “Wild Science”. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 411–443. · DOI
  17. Fisher, P., Farrelly, C., Maddocks, A., & Ruggles, C. L. N. (1997). Spatial analysis of visible areas from the bronze age cairns of Mull. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(7), 581–592. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fleming, A. (1999). Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18(2), 119–125. · DOI
  19. Fleming, A. (2005). Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. Antiquity, 79(306), 921–932. · DOI
  20. Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16(3), 267–280. · DOI
  21. Gaffney, V., Stancic, Z., & Watson, H. (1996). Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps toward a larger archaeological context for GIS. In M. Aldenderfer & H. D. G. Maschner (Eds.), Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems (pp. 132–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Oxford: Polity Press.
  23. Graig, W. J., & Elwood, S. A. (1998). How and why community groups use maps and geographic information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 95–104. · DOI
  24. Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R., Brown, K., Combes, P., Herring, E., & Thomas, M. S. (2006). Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a “subjective” approach. European Journal of Archaeology, 9(1), 31–71. · DOI
  25. Hodder, I. (1991). Interpretive archaeology and its role. American Antiquity, 56, 7–18. · DOI
  26. Ingold, T. (1987). Territoriality and tenure: the appropriation of space in hunting and gathering societies. In The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and human relations (pp. 130–164). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  27. Ingold, T. (2000). Maps, wayfinding and navigation. In The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill (pp. 219–242). London: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Lake, M. W., Woodman, P. E., & Mithen, S. J. (1998). Tailoring GIS software for archaeological applications: an example concerning viewshed analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(1), 27–38. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Llobera, M. (2007). Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeology, 39(1), 51–69. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lock, G. (2010). Representations of space and place in the humanities. In D. J. Bodenhamer, J. Corrigan, & T. M. Harris (Eds.), The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities scholarship (pp. 89–109). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  32. Lock, G., & Harris, T. (2006). Enhancing predictive modeling: location, landscape, and culture. In M. Mehrer & K. L. Westcott (Eds.), GIS and archaeological site location modeling (pp. 41–62). London: Taylor and Francis.
  33. Pickles, J. (1995). Representation in an information age: geography, GIS and democracy. In J. Pickles (Ed.), Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 1–30). New York: The Guildford Press.
  34. Renfrew, C. (1994). Towards a cognitive archaeology. In C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 3–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  35. Sui, D. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie's new tattoo and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32, 1–5. · DOI
  36. Thomas, J. (Ed.). (2000). Interpretive archaeology: a reader. London: Leicester University Press.
  37. Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Thomas, J. (2006). A reply to Christopher Witmore, Håkon Glørstad, Søren Kjørup and Ola W. Jensen. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 39(1), 62–69.
  39. Thomas, J. (2008). Archaeology, landscape and dwelling. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  40. Tilley, C. (1994). The phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.
  41. Tilley, C. (2004). The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford: Berg.
  42. Tilley, C. (2008a). Body and image: explorations in landscape phenomenology 2. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  43. Tilley, C. (2008b). Phenomenological approaches to landscape archaeology. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  44. Tilley, C. (2010). Interpreting landscapes: explorations in landscape phenomenology 3. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  45. van der Leeuw, S., & Kohler, T. (Eds.). (2007). The model-based archaeology of socio-natural systems. Santa Fe: School of Advanced Research.
  46. Wickstead, H. (2007). Land division and identity in later prehistoric dartmoor, South-West Britain: translocating tenure. Unpublished PhD thesis. University College, London.
  47. Wickstead, H. (2009). The über-archaeologist: art, GIS and the male gaze revisited. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(2), 249–271. · DOI
  48. Woodman, P. E. (2000). Beyond significant patterning, towardspast intentions: the location of Orcadian chambered tombs. Proceedings of the UK Chapter of Computer Applications andQuantitative Methods in Archaeology. In C. Buck, V. Cummings, C. Henley, S. Mills, & S. Trick (Eds.), British archaeological reports international (Vol. 844, pp. 91–105). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Llobera, M.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-07-10
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
495-509
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-012-9139-2
Cited by
81
References
6
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