Exploring the Inherent Affordability for Movement in Past Landscapes

It may state two separate claims as one.

Omniscape remains largely unknown in archaeology, with only a couple of examples of its use to date.

“Despite this potential, it remains largely unknown in archaeology, and, to our knowledge, there are only a couple of examples in which it has been used to date (Parcero-Oubiña et al., 2024;Yu et al., 2026).”

• cites Parcero-Oubiña et al., 2024 sourceSupported
• cites Yu et al., 2026Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The conditional minimum transit cost (CMTC) creates buffer areas connecting pairs of points whose width is directly related to terrain conditions for mobility, and can uncover alternative routes to the single best least cost path.

“It has the benefit of creating buffer areas connecting pairs of points whose width is directly related with the conditions of terrain for mobility.Besides that, it can also uncover alternative routes to the single best least cost path.”

• cites Pinto & Keitt, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Hodza & Butler, 2022 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Omniscape requires only two input layers, both raster: a resistance layer and a source strength layer.

“Only two input layers are needed, both as raster layers: a resistance and a source strength (Fig. 1).”

• cites Landau et al., 2021 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Every pixel with a source strength value greater than 0 is considered a valid source, and a circular window is centred on it to calculate current dispersal over pixels within that window with source value greater than 0.

“In other words, every single pixel with a value greater than 0 is considered a valid source and a circular window will be centred on it for calculating how current will disperse over all the pixels located within that window and with a source value also greater than 0.”

• cites Landau et al., 2021 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The way travel costs are quantified and mapped is a problem common to all forms of digital mobility modelling and has been discussed at length in archaeology.

“This is a problem common to all forms of digital mobility modelling and has been discussed at length, in particular in archaeology (Herzog, 2013b;Kantner, 2012;Lewis, 2024).”

• cites Herzog, 2013bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Kantner, 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Lewis, 2024 sourcePartly supported

  The Abstract and Introduction discuss problems with how walking costs are represented by slope-based cost functions in archaeological least-cost-path modelling. They support the claim that this issue has been discussed in archaeology, but do not establish that it is common to all forms of digital mobility modelling. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Processing time for Barbanza was ca. 9 min for the short distance radius and scaled up to 6 h for the long distance.

“Using the abovementioned Dell Precision workstation with an Intel Xeon × 5650 processor, 12 Gb of RAM and with 10 processors working in parallel, processing time was only ca. 9 min for the short distance radius and scaled up to 6 h for the long distance.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In the first control scenario, connectivity is concentrated in the narrow passageway leading into the circus, while the ridge and the base of the slope appear secondarily as areas with good connectivity.

“In the first scenario, there is a clear concentration of connectivity in the narrow passageway leading into the circus, while the ridge and the base of the slope appear, secondarily, as areas with good connectivity as well.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Processing time for the control surfaces was ca. 38 min per scenario on a Dell Precision workstation with Intel Xeon × 5650, 12 Gb RAM, and 10 processors.

“Using a Dell Precision workstation with an Intel Xeon × 5650 processor, 12 Gb of RAM and with 10 processors working in parallel, processing time was ca.38 min per scenario.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

At shorter distances, burial mound connectivity values are somewhat lower, but only 11 are below the 90th percentile.

“At shorter distances, the values are somewhat lower, but even so, only 11 are below the 90 percentile.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

All burial mounds occupy positions in percentiles above 80 at long distances, with 41 out of 51 above the 95th percentile.

“As can be seen, all the burial mounds occupy positions in percentiles above 80 at long distances, with the majority in fact above the 95 percentile (41 out of 51 mounds).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The long-distance model produces easily discernible potential corridors indicating most likely patterns of movement across the area, while the short-distance model produces connections with greater capillarity, more local in nature, partly coinciding with long-distance but with higher granularity.

“The long-distance model produces a series of easily discernible potential corridors, indicating the most likely patterns of movement across the area.The short-distance model produces connections with greater capillarity, more local in nature, which partly coincide with those of the long-distance model but introducing a higher level of granularity.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Histogram comparison shows that burial mounds tend to occupy positions of very high connectivity at both distances, particularly long-distance, where 12 out of 51 mounds are placed on the very few positions with the highest possible connectivity.

“The comparison clearly shows the tendency of the burial mounds to occupy positions of very high connectivity at both distances, although particularly so in terms of long-distance connectivity, where almost a quarter of the burial mounds under analysis (12 out of 51) are placed on the very few positions with the highest possible connectivity.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Comparison of absolute values between the three control scenarios illustrates different intensity of concentration, showing more extreme mobility corridors in the two abstract scenarios.

“The comparison of the absolute values between the three scenarios Fig. 3 Results of the Omniscape analysis in the three scenarios.Above, independent colour scale for each case (same relative minimum and maximum); below, the same scale for all three (Fig. 3, below) illustrates the different intensity of concentration in each case, clearly showing the more extreme nature of the mobility corridors in”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Combining two different scales of analysis can provide a useful additional level of information.

“combining two different scales of analysis can provide a useful additional level of information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The resulting images (Fig. 3, Fig. 6) can be described as heatmaps in which intensity is proportional to the importance of each location in terms of mobility.

“The resulting images (Fig. 3, Fig. 6) can be described as heatmaps in which the intensity is proportional to the importance of each location in terms of mobility.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The order of magnitude of processing time is different between Llobera's work and Omniscape.

“the order of magnitude is certainly different from the 9 min for the short-distance radius and 6 h for the longdistance calculations we obtained with Omniscape.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

All eight Iron Age hillforts analysed consistently showed a slightly higher correlation with short-range connectivity, but the small sample size and minimal magnitude of difference make firm conclusions unwise.

“Perhaps the most interesting finding is that all eight Iron Age hillforts analysed consistently showed a slightly higher correlation with short-range connectivity; however, given both the small sample size and the minimal magnitude of the difference, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions from this.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Processing time with Omniscape was 9 min for the short-distance radius and 6 h for the long-distance calculations.

“the 9 min for the short-distance radius and 6 h for the longdistance calculations we obtained with Omniscape.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Disaggregated data show that Iron Age hillforts and prehistoric rock art sites have similarly heterogeneous distributions, in sharp contrast with the consistent values of burial mounds.

“Even if we disaggregate the data, the pattern remains more or less the same (Fig. 9): both Iron Age hillforts and prehistoric rock art sites (the two most frequent categories of other sites in the area) show similarly heterogeneous distributions, that stand in sharp contrast with the consistent values of burial mounds.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The relationship between the heterogeneous group of other sites and connectivity is generally much lower than for burial mounds, but there is generally a stronger relationship with short-distance connectivity than with long-distance connectivity.

“As can be seen, the relationship between this heterogeneous group and connectivity is generally much lower than in the case of burial mounds but, interestingly enough, there is also generally a stronger relationship with short-distance connectivity than with long-distance connectivity (more points laying below the line of perfect equivalence).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For the control surfaces, an analysis radius of 250 pixels (500 m), equivalent to the maximum dimension of each area, was set, ensuring a result that accounts for all possible connections between all pixels.

“Given that these scenarios consist of fairly small images (only 62,500 pixels), we have had no difficulty in setting an analysis radius of 250 pixels (500 m), equivalent to the maximum dimension of each area, which ensures a result that accounts for all possible connections between all the pixels.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The radius parameter determines the scale at which connectivity is analysed: a low value results in aggregation of connections at a local scale, while a high value provides information on long-distance connectivity.

“The value of this parameter will determine the scale at which we analyse connectivity within the study area.A low value will result in the aggregation of connections at a local scale, i.e., the connections between each cell and its immediate neighbours.A high value (for example, equivalent to the maximum length of the study area) will provide information on long-distance connectivity.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In the control surfaces, the cost of movement was modelled based only on terrain slope using the metabolic walking costs function proposed in Llobera & Sluckin, 2007.

“The cost of movement has been modelled based only on the effect of terrain slope and calculated using the metabolic walking costs function proposed in Llobera & Sluckin, 2007.”

• cites Llobera & Sluckin, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim.

In Barbanza, the cost of movement was modelled based only on terrain slope using the metabolic walking costs function from Llobera & Sluckin, 2007.

“The cost of movement has been modelled based again only on the effect of terrain slope and calculated using the metabolic walking costs function proposed in (Llobera & Sluckin, 2007).”

• cites Llobera & Sluckin, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Connectivity in Barbanza was modelled at two distance scales: long distance with radius 500 pixels (5 km, 1/3 of maximum dimension) and local distance with radius 100 pixels (1 km).

“Following the procedure developed in the same area by M. Llobera a few years ago (Llobera, 2015), we have modelled connectivity in the area at two distance scales, establishing two different values for the Omniscape radius parameter (which, as was discussed, determines the size of the moving window of analysis): for long distance, a radius of 500 pixels (5 km, corresponding to 1/3 of the maximum”

• cites Llobera, 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Omniscape works by applying Circuitscape through a moving window whose radius is a key user-set parameter.

“It works by applying Circuitscape through a moving window whose radius is one of the key parameters that need to be set by the user.”

• cites Landau et al., 2021 sourceNot checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Circuit theory models potential movement between locations omnidirectionally as a flow gradient, generating corridors beyond optimality whose amplitude and narrowness depend on terrain conditions.

“In that way, potential movement between different locations in a region is modelled omnidirectionally, as a flow gradient, rather than as a single optimal line, generating corridors beyond optimality whose amplitude and narrowness depend on the conditions of the terrain.”

• cites McRae et al., 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Kavanagh et al., 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The study did not include a penalty for watercourses because in the study area the only watercourses are small and seasonal streams with a negligible effect on pedestrian mobility.

“However, in our study area the only watercourses are small and seasonal streams, with a negligible effect in pedestrian mobility.That is why, in this case, we have not considered the option of imposing an additional cost on watercourses to prevent this effect, which may indeed be significant in other landscapes.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The Focal Mobility Network (MADO) models n potential routes towards one single destination, requiring one destination and understanding movement in relation to one specific place in the landscape.

“One widely used is the Focal Mobility Network (or MADO in its commonly used Spanish acronym) (Fábrega-Álvarez, 2006;Llobera et al., 2011), a method for modelling n potential routes towards one single destination-very similar to the method developed in Frachetti, 2006.”

• Also stated in: § Motivation · plain

  “But again, it has the limitation of requiring one destination, of understanding movement with relation to one specific place in the landscape.”

• cites Fábrega-Álvarez, 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Llobera et al., 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Frachetti, 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The choice of radius depends on the type of mobility to be modelled, and increasing the radius leads to an exponential increase in processing time.

“The choice of this variable therefore depends on the type of mobility we wish to model, although it should be borne in mind that increasing the radius leads to an exponential increase in the processing time required (in the case studies that follow, we will provide data on the processing times obtained).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In many cases, such as wall-to-wall approaches, aggregation methods model a centrifugal pattern of movement, establishing connections between points along the edges of the study area and disregarding local connections between central places.

“Besides that, in many cases (such as in the wall-to-wall approaches) they model what could be called a”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Aggregation of multiple connections between large numbers of points (FETE, wall-to-wall, CCP) allows approaching the inherent affordability for movement of a terrain, but remains point-based and its outcome is conditioned by the placement of pairs of points.

“Either used with LCP (Llobera, 2015) or with circuit-based connections (Kelly et al., 2023;Kohut, 2018), they allow approaching the major issue of the inherent affordability for movement of a terrain.However, they remain point-based analyses, which, as has been noted, might still entail some drawbacks since the outcome is still conditioned, to some extent, by the placement of the pairs of points (”

• cites White & Barber, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Kohut, 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Verhagen, 2013Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Omniscape is built on Circuitscape, expanding it by enabling sources, destinations and intensity of movement (modelled as electrical current) to be informed by continuous spatial data, so connectivity can be calculated between all locations.

“Omniscape (B.McRae et al., 2016) is a tool that makes this possible.Omniscape is built on Circuitscape, expanding it by enabling the sources, destinations and intensity of movement (modelled as electrical current) to be informed by continuous spatial data.This means that connectivity can be calculated not just between specific discrete locations in a region, but rather between all locations.”

• cites B.McRae et al., 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

It may state two separate claims as one.

Omniscape provides a more general characterisation of how mobility can shape a landscape in a continuous and global manner, unlike an analysis aimed at identifying areas most likely to contain potential pathways.

“Unlike an analysis aimed at identifying the areas most likely to contain potential pathways, Omniscape provides a more general characterisation of how mobility can shape a landscape in a continuous and global manner.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

FMN accumulates connectivity from each pixel in just one neighbouring cell, while Omniscape distributes it amongst all neighbouring cells.

“In FMN, connectivity from each pixel is accumulated in just one of the neighbouring cells, whilst Omniscape distributes it amongst all the neighbouring cells.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

As a result, FMN output takes the form of trajectories with linear continuity against a neutral background, while Omniscape produces gradients akin to mobility corridors or hotspots that may or may not exhibit spatial continuity across the entire study area.

“As a result, the FCN output takes the form of trajectories with linear continuity (which would represent the most likely paths) against a neutral background, whilst Omniscape produces gradients-more akin to mobility corridors or hotspots-which may or may not exhibit spatial continuity across the entire study area.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Llobera's total running time for simulations was about four days.

“the total running time of the different simulations amounted to about four days”

• cites LloberaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The radius parameter is a useful variable because it allows analysis to be adapted to the scale of research questions.

“Rather than a limitation, this parameter is a very useful variable, as it allows the analysis to be adapted to the scale of the research questions being addressed.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Llobera's simulation based on aggregation of optimal paths provides a pathway-oriented outcome in which parts of the study area appear as a neutral background.

“simulation based on the aggregation of optimal paths, although very dense in his case (”

• cites Llobera, 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Llobera does not provide details of the computer used to perform the calculations.

“he does not provide details of the computer used to perform the calculations.”

• cites LloberaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The three control surfaces and corresponding cost maps are available at a given URL to allow reproducibility.

“To allow reproducibility, these three control surfaces and the corresponding cost maps are available at https:// digit al. csic. es/ handle/ 10261/ 437532”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Llobera uses a higher-resolution DEM (5 × 5 m), although his study area is smaller, so the size of the datasets is similar.

“Llobera uses a higher-resolution DEM (5 × 5 m), although his study area is smaller, so the size of the datasets is similar”

• cites LloberaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The integration problem is not trivial but is not unique to Omniscape.

“This is not a trivial problem, but it is by no means unique to this tool.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Previous studies (Fábregas Valcarce et al., 2018) reported a variable association between burial mounds and mobility depending on how optimal routes were generated.

“some previous studies (Fábregas Valcarce et al., 2018) have reported a variable association between burial mounds and mobility, depending on how those optimal routes were generated”

• cites Fábregas Valcarce et al., 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

There is no technical impediment or difficulty in incorporating other cost factors into Omniscape.

“there is no technical impediment or difficulty in incorporating other possible factors.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The examples using ideal control surfaces provide a practical illustration of the kind of insights Omniscape enables, bringing closer to mapping the affordability of movement within a given space.

“The examples presented, using ideal control surfaces, provide a practical illustration of the kind of insights Omniscape enables, bringing us closer to mapping the affordability of movement within a given space.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Llobera's findings are very similar to those obtained here, with the association very clear and even more evident for long-distance mobility.

“His findings, in archaeological terms, are very similar to those obtained here (except that, in his case, they are limited to considering burial mounds and do not compare them with other types of sites): the association is very clear, and this is even more evident in the case of longdistance mobility.”

• cites Llobera (2015)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Isotropic treatment of movement costs is consistent with viewing the tool as a way to understand affordability of movement in a global and abstract manner, without specific starting or finishing points.

“it is consistent with viewing the tool as a form to understand the affordability of movement within a given landscape, in a global and abstract manner, without considering specific starting or finishing points.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Unlike other approaches, Omniscape allows all locations within a study area to be used as both origin and destination of connections, avoiding biases inherent in using a discrete number of points.

“Unlike other approaches, Omniscape allows all locations within a study area to be used as both the origin and destination of connections, thereby avoiding the potential problems or biases inherent in using a discrete number of points, however numerous they may be.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The DEM and cost surface are available at a given URL.

“Both the DEM and the cost surface are available at https:// digit al. csic. es/ handle/ 10261/”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Llobera's study area is larger and encompasses other sectors and a greater number of burial mounds.

“It should be noted that their study area is larger and encompasses other sectors and a greater number of burial mounds.”

• cites LloberaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

For other types of sites in the Barbanza case study, mobility either did not influence site selection or influenced only certain specific sites, but was not a general locational factor.

“whereas for other types of sites this influence either did not exist, or might be considered just for certain specific sites, but would not have been a general locational factor.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Omniscape provides a value for each possible position (pixel) within the study area.

“one of the advantages offered by Omniscape is that it provides a value for each of the possible positions (pixels) within the study area.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Omniscape provides a gradient of values that highlights not just potential pathways but movement bottlenecks, giving different weights to different parts of a pathway.

“Omniscape provides an interesting gradient of values that allows highlighting not just potential pathways but movement bottlenecks, giving different weights to different parts of what otherwise might be considered as just one single, continuous pathway.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The only requirement for incorporating other factors is to integrate all variables into one single resistance image and cost scale.

“the only requirement is to be able to integrate all the variables one wishes to use into one single resistance image (and, therefore, a single cost scale).”