Cited by 168Archaeological Research and ProtectionUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisArchaeological and Geological Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple pathways across past landscapes: circuit theory as a complementary geospatial method to least cost path for modeling past movement

Howey, Meghan C.L.·2011·Journal of Archaeological Science

Abstract

The incorporation of geospatial technologies in archaeology has resulted in productive advances in the analysis of past behavioral processes. Archaeologists have relied on the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) application of cost surface analysis and the computation of least cost paths (LCP) to study movement, one key social process. Recent research has identified limitations with LCP for modeling nonhuman species movement, notably the inability of LCP to accommodate multiple pathways. Archaeology must consider the implications of these critiques for models of past human movement. In this paper, I apply a different approach, circuit theory modeling, enacted through the program Circuitscape, to an archaeological case study previously analyzed with LCP modeling, travel to a regionally significant ceremonial earthwork center during Late Prehistory (ca. AD 1200–1600) in the Northern Great Lakes. Through this comparative analysis, I evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of these methods for modeling past movement. The results suggest LCP modeling and circuit modeling offer archaeology complementary geospatial methods for conceptualizing past mobility. Combining circuit theory and LCP allows archaeologists to produce richer models of past movement by appreciating scenarios where multiple pathways are important as well as scenarios where optimum single travel routes have priority.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.024

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Archaeologists have explored defining corridors of movement on the basis of cost surfaces as a more fuzzy and possibly more realistic approach to reconstructing and predicting ancient movement patterns.

    “Therefore, archaeologists have also explored the possibility of defining corridors of movement on the basis of cost surfaces, as a more fuzzy and possibly more realistic approach to reconstructing and predicting ancient movement patterns (e.g.Howey 2011;Murrieta-Flores 2012;Van Lanen et al. 2015a;Howey and Brouwer Burg 2017).”
  • Circuit Theory has been applied to a number of archaeological case studies.

    “In fact, CT has been applied to a number of archaeological case studies (Domingo Ribas, 2018;Howey, 2011;Thayn et al., 2016).”
  • Slope generally has not been the single decisive factor in past movement through the landscape.

    “However, slope generally has not been the single decisive factor in past movement through the landscape (Howey, 2011).”
  • Landscape connectivity models are widely used in ecology to understand habitat connectivity and species movement and have been applied to model human mobility potential in archaeological contexts.

    “Landscape connectivity models are widely used in ecology to understand habitat connectivity and species movement (e.g.Beier et al. 2011;Chetkiewicz, St. Clair, and Boyce 2006;Crooks and Sanjayan 2006;Rayfield, Fortin, and Fall 2011;Taylor et al. 1993) and have been applied to model human mobility potential in archaeological contexts (e.g.Howey 2011; Howey and Burg 2017;Kempf 2020;Kohut 2018).”
  • New ways of modelling ancient movement that look beyond LCPs to explore multiple optimal routes or the range of probable routes between points have been proposed, such as those utilizing circuit theory, flow accumulation, focal mobility networks, or Monte Carlo simulation.

    “new ways of modelling ancient movement that look beyond LCPs to explore multiple optimal routes or the range of probable routes between points have come to be proposed, such as those utilizing circuit theory (”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hambacher, M., 1992. The Skegemog Point Site; Continuing Studies in the Cultural Dynamics of the Carolinian-Canadian Transition Zone, PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Howey, M. C. L.
Affiliations
University of New Hampshire (US)
Corresponding author
Howey, Meghan C.L.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
38
Issue
10
Pages
2523-2535
ISSN
0305-4403 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023132642
Cited by
168
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Archaeological Science (publishedVersion)
  • University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
circuit theory, least-cost path, Circuitscape, Late Prehistory, travel routes

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