CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Archaeological Research and ProtectionUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisHistorical and Architectural Studies

Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility

Open access
Gillings, Mark·2017·Journal of Archaeological Science
DOI 10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Since the widespread adoption of GIS by archaeologists in the early 1990s, analyses of visibility have steadily gained traction, becoming commonplace in landscape and regional analysis. This is in large part due to the routine way in which such products can be generated, bolstered by a raft of landscape-based studies that have placed varying degrees of emphasis upon human perception and direct bodily engagement in seeking to understand and explore the past. Despite this seeming popularity, two worrying trends stand out. The first is the lack of any coherent theoretical framework, applications preferring instead to seek justification in the very first wave of experiential landscape approaches that emerged in the early 1990s. Needless to say, the intervening 20 or so years have seen considerable development in the conceptual tools we draw upon in order to make sense of past landscapes, not to mention considerable finessing of the first-wave developments alluded to above. Second is the tendency to relegate viewshed analysis to certain types of predictable problem or question (i.e. viewshed analysis has become typecast). These trends have been compounded by a host of other issues. For example, whilst there have been refinements, tweaks and variations to the basic viewshed (and the frequency with which they are generated and combined), not to mention establishment of robust calibration criteria for controlling them and statistical approaches for assessing the patterns tendered, these have yet to be brought together in any coherent fashion and their veracity critically assessed. Likewise, a failure to establish an agreed vocabulary has resulted in a number of proverbial wheels being reinvented time and again. The argument presented here is that viewsheds have considerably more to offer archaeology but to realise this entails confronting these issues head on. That this is possible and desirable is illustrated through discussion of a new theoretical framework for visibility-studies that draws upon developments in assemblage theory and the author's own work on affordance and relationality. To demonstrate the value of this approach in encouraging different ways of thinking about what viewsheds are and how we might begin to draw creatively upon them, a case-study is described where viewsheds are folded into a detailed exploration of landscape liminality.

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 · 10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.004

Cites

55 of 55 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: 1

  1. Harris, 2014, Revealing our vibrant past: science, materiality and the neolithic, Proc. Br. Acad., 198, 327

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gillings, M.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Gillings, Mark
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
84
Pages
121-128
ISSN
0305-4403 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.004
OpenAlex
W2612893772
Cited by
38
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Archaeological Science (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Historical and Architectural Studies
Keywords
visibility analysis, visibility, assemblage theory, affordances, relationality, human perception, emergent properties, terrain analysis, landscape archaeology

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