CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Geographic Information Systems StudiesArchaeological Research and ProtectionHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies

Participatory Mapping and Participatory GIS for Historical and Archaeological Landscape Studies: a Critical Review

Álvarez Larrain, Alina, McCall, Michael K.·2019·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents participatory mapping (PM) and Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS) approaches as an appropriate and still developing kind of community-based spatial study in archaeology. Researchers and practitioners who advocate reflexive mapping practices in the field recognize that mapping is not an objective practice and that maps are necessarily the product of those who create them. We consider that a PM/PGIS approach can contribute to this reflexive practice through the incorporation of local spatial knowledge (LSK) which is always placebased and reflects a long and close physical interaction with the landscape. For local communities, this approach helps them to be incorporated as active subjects in the registration and interpretation of their cultural heritage, as well as in the defense and management of it. At the same time, archaeological studies are enriched by incorporating contemporary perspectives and local people’s knowledge into interpretations of past landscapes.

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/s10816-018-9385-z

Cites

161 of 161 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Aichino, G. L., De Carli, M. C., Zabala, M. E., & Fabra, M. (2012). Procesos de activación y valoración del patrimonio arqueológico a través de la cartografía social: los casos de San Carlos Minas y Villa de Tránsito (Córdoba, Argentina). Revista de Extensión de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 3, 1–27.
  2. Álvarez Larrain, A., Greco, C. & McCall, M. (n.d.). Saberes y percepciones locales sobre los paisajes arqueológicos: experiencias de cartografía participativa en Yocavil (Noroeste argentino). Special issue of Boletín Antropológico del Museo Arqueológico de la Universidad de los Andes. In review.
  3. Barlindhaug, S. (2012). Mapping complexity. Archaeological sites and historic land use extent in a Sámi community in Arctic Norway. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 23, 105–124.
  4. Barlindhaug, S. (2013). Cultural sites, traditional knowledge and participatory mapping. Long-term land use in a Sámi Community in Coastal Norway. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. PhD thesis. munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/5405/thesis.pdf?sequence=2 .
  5. Brady, S. (2009). Participatory mapping empowers patrimony. Americas, 61(2), 38–43.
  6. Cárdenas Támara, F. (Ed.) (2000). Desarrollo sostenible en los Andes de Colombia: Provincias del Norte, Gutiérrez y Valderrama, Boyacá, Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Estudios Ambientales para el Desarrollo, IDEADE, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
  7. Cerra, M. C. (2011). Mapeando representaciones: cerros, centros y fronteras. Comunidad Diaguita-Calchaquí. “El Divisadero”, Cafayate, Salta. In L. Rodríguez (Ed.), Resistencias, conflictos y negociaciones. El valle Calchaquí desde el período prehispánico hasta la actualidad (pp. 211–229). Rosario: Prohistoria Ediciones.
  8. Corbett, J. (2009). Good practices in participatory mapping. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/d1383979-4976-4c8e-ba5d-53419e37cbcc .
  9. Corbett, J., & Keller, P. (2006). Using community information systems to communicate traditional knowledge embedded in the landscape. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 21–27 pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14507IIED.pdf .
  10. Cosgrove, D. (1999). Introduction: mapping meaning. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings (pp. 1–23). London: Reaktion Books.
  11. Dillehay, T., & Saavedra, J. (2013). Developmental archaeology and long-term partnerships with the Chilean Mapuche. SAA Archaeological Record, 13(3), 4–8.
  12. Duin, R. S. (2017). Indigenous archaeologies and histories in Suriname: from pre-Columbian archaeology and ethno-archaeology to a community-based archaeology of engagement. In R. S. Duin & C. White (Eds.), Archaeology in Suriname N 7 (pp. 73–108). Suriname: Anton de Kom Universiteit van Suriname.
  13. Duin, R. S., Toinaike, K., Alupki, T., & Opoya, A. (2014). Participatory mapping: engaged archaeology with the indigenous people of the Upper Maroni Basin, northern Amazonia. Revista Amazônica, 6(2), 333–357.
  14. Fals Borda, O. (1999). Orígenes universales y retos actuales de la IAP (Investigación Acción Participativa). Análisis Político, 38, 71–88.
  15. Flavelle, A. (2002). Mapping our land. Alberta: Lone Pine Publishing.
  16. Fox, J., Suryanata, K., Hershock, P., & Pramono, A. H. (2006). Mapping power: ironic effects of spatial information technology. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 98–105 pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14507IIED.pdf .
  17. Goodman, J. M. (1987). A Navajo atlas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  18. Gould, R. (1980). Living archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Harley, J. B. (1988). Maps, knowledge and power. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape: essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environment (pp. 277–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Jiménez Izarraraz, M. A. (2015). La Vinculación Social en Arqueología. Planeación del Impacto Social de un Proyecto Arqueológico. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán.
  21. Montini, G. (2008). Revalorizando nuestras raíces: Una arqueología del Oeste del Valle de las Carreras, Tafí del Valle, Tucumán. Bachelor’s thesis, Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.
  22. Nietschmann, B. (1994). Defending the Miskito reefs with maps and GPS. Mapping with sail, scuba, and satellite. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18, 4. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/defending-miskito-reefs-maps-and-gps-mapping-sail-scuba .
  23. Phillips, C., & Allen, H. (2010). Bridging the divide. Indigenous communities and archaeology in the 21 st century. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
  24. Poole, P. (1995). Geomatics: who needs it? Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18 (4). www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/geomatics-who-needs.-it .
  25. Rambaldi, G., Tuivanuavou, S., Namata, P., Vanualailai, P., Rupeni, S., & Rupeni, E. (2006a). Resource use, development planning, and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: lessons from Fiji Islands. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 28–35 pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14507IIED.pdf .
  26. Saul, H. (2014). The Himalayan exploration and archaeological research team. Scientific-humanitarian fieldwork in collaboration with the mountain communities of Nepal. SAA Archaeological Record, 14(2), 26–30.
  27. Stone, M. (1998). Map or be mapped. Whole Earth, 94(Fall), 54–55.
  28. Tilley, C. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape place, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.
  29. Tobias, T. N. (Ed.). (2010). Living proof: the essential data-collection guide for indigenous use-and-occupancy map surveys. North Vancouver: Aboriginal Mapping Network.
  30. Toledo Maya Cultural Council. (1997). Maya atlas: the struggle to preserve Maya land in southern Belize. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
  31. Woodward, D., & Lewis, G. M. (Eds.). (1998). The history of cartography. Vol. 2. Book 3. Cartography in the traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Álvarez Larrain, A., & McCall, M. K.
Affiliations
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (MX)
ORCID
Álvarez Larrain, Alina
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-06-25
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
643-678
ISSN
  • 1072-5369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z
OpenAlex
W2810978717
Cited by
89
References
161
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
FWCI
29.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (publishedVersion)
Funders
Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PE307016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Keywords
participatory mapping, participatory GIS, community archaeology, heritage management, local communities, place-based knowledge

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