The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology
Open accessAbstract
Geographical Information Systems has moved from the domain of the computer specialist into the wider archaeological community, providing it with an exciting new research method. This clearly written but rigorous book provides a comprehensive guide to that use. Topics covered include: the theoretical context and the basics of GIS; data acquisition including database design; interpolation of elevation models; exploratory data analysis including spatial queries; statistical spatial analysis; map algebra; spatial operations including the calculation of slope and aspect, filtering and erosion modeling; methods for analysing regions; visibility analysis; network analysis including hydrological modeling; the production of high quality output for paper and electronic publication; and the use and production of metadata. Offering an extensive range of archaeological examples, it is an invaluable source of practical information for all archaeologists, whether engaged in cultural resource management or academic research. This is essential reading for both the novice and the advanced user.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This is the introductory chapter of a manual on GIS in archaeology, arguing that GIS is one powerful tool among many and that its appropriate use requires awareness of the theoretical concepts of space embedded in it. It reviews the philosophical debate over space and the parallel debate over whether GIS is a "tool" or a "science," then traces how archaeological GIS has moved from common-sense narrative through scientific explanation toward post-processual concerns.
Key findings
- Two philosophical concepts of space are argued to map onto GIS data models: the absolute ("container") concept fits the continuous field model and raster DEMs, while the relative concept has "some affinity" with the entity model and vector maps — though the authors caution that raster and vector are data structures, not data models, and either can represent the other.
- Spatial languages (geometries) differ in specificity: topology cannot measure distance or area and suits relative space and stratigraphic relations (e.g. the Harris matrix), whereas Euclidean geometry is metric and supports more meaningful questions, such as measuring areas covered by deposits.
- The chapter traces archaeological GIS through three modes: "common-sense" narrative (e.g. Gaffney and Stančič 1991, 1992, who showed Roman towers on Hvar are intervisible but did not test whether this arose by chance), scientific explanation (Kvamme 1993; van Leusen 1993; Wheatley 1995, 1996 using a one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; Fisher et al. 1997 on control samples and causality), and post-processual critique.
- Three strands of post-processual thought are reviewed: how we learn about the past (phenomenology; the charge that GIS perpetuates Haraway's "God trick"), what we study (meaning and symbolism versus environmental determinism), and the "otherness" of the past (Thomas 2004 questioning how far a microprocessor can facilitate experiential archaeology).
Methods
- This is a theoretical and introductory review chapter, not an empirical study; it presents no dataset, sample, or statistical analysis of its own.
- It synthesises philosophical literature on space (Harvey, Popper, Kant, Newton), GIS data-model literature (Burrough and McDonnell 1998; Couclelis 1992; Worboys 1995), and a body of archaeological GIS case studies to frame the book's practical chapters.
- The chapter also outlines the book's structure, mapping chapters to tasks such as data acquisition (Chapters 4–5), surface generation (Chapter 6), analysis (Chapters 7–11), presentation (Chapter 12), and metadata maintenance (Chapter 13).
Limitations
- Stated: the authors concede that the three strands of post-processual thought they use to organise the discussion "are not so readily separable" in reality, and that they cannot provide instructions for every GIS software package, offering only some package-specific examples.
- Stated: they note that the earliest research-orientated archaeological GIS studies are treated only briefly and that a fuller treatment of visibility studies appears elsewhere (Lake and Woodman 2003).
- Evident from the text: as an introductory chapter it advances no testable claims or original data, so its arguments rest on selective citation of prior work rather than systematic review; the "tool versus science" debate is summarised rather than resolved.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 No basis given · 10 Own interpretation · 9 Sources not found
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The tendency of processual archaeology to focus most attention on the ecological and economic dimensions of human existence has been replaced by an emphasis on meaning and symbolism.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hodder 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Thomas 1991b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From then on there was a clear concern with increasing inferential rigour.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, a programme of field survey by surface collection is more likely to be predicated on the absolute concept of space and to emphasise relationships that require Euclidean geometry.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Curiously, the earliest research-orientated archaeological GIS studies generally mirrored the 'common-sense' approach of 'traditional' archaeology (Aldenderfer 1996)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aldenderfer 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the authors did not attempt to support it by, for example, demonstrating that intervisibility is unlikely to have occurred by chance alone and was not a byproduct of some other favourable attribute.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Since the mid 1990s European archaeological GIS practitioners have been particularly concerned that the use of GIS has, whether intentionally (Wheatley 1993, p. 133) or otherwise (Gaffney et al. 1996, p. 132), encouraged the continuation or even re-introduction of a positivist approach that had otherwise been rejected by post-processual archaeology.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wheatley 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gaffney et al. 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This, however, risks replacing a determinism based on one suite of environmental variables with a determinism based on another.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most problematic is that modern GIS packages offer users a variety of powerful tools that are easily applied, without providing much guidance on their appropriateness for the data or questions at hand.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, the single context recording system used on many deeply stratified urban excavations is essentially predicated on the relative concept of space and emphasises topological relations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there has been much debate in geography about whether GIS constitutes a 'tool' or a 'science' (Wright et al. 1997)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wright et al. 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As will become clear in Chapter 2, the location descriptor is what sets GIS apart from other database systems.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“metadata are of vital importance, as the investment in creating a GIS will soon be wasted without them.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our view it does, both for the use of GIS to record archaeological evidence and for its subsequent use to analyse that evidence in the hope of learning about the past.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“His work was subsequently further refined by Fisher et al. (1997), who emphasised that the mere existence of an association between human activity and one or more environmental variables does not in itself provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fisher et al. 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, one of the most notable features of topological geometries is that they do not allow one to measure distance or area.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two principal data models used in GIS to describe how these should be linked to some extent mirror the two philosophical concepts of space.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach represents a significant break with positivist models of inference, eschewing expert explanation based on the results of statistical tests in favour of multiple understandings, each potentially unique to a particular participant.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The requirements of the two different archaeological problems just outlined will best be met using different models of space: the entity model in the first case and the relative model in the second, which in turn suggests the creation of vector and raster maps, respectively”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any kind of spatial analysis, whether formal or informal, is ultimately predicated on a concept of space.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Geographical information systems require two descriptors to describe the real world: attribute records what is present while location records where it is (Worboys 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Worboys 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the continuous field model organises information by a set of predetermined locations in space it can be considered to fit quite closely with the philosophical absolute concept of space.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Western thought has been dominated by two main philosophical ideas about the nature of space, one of which views it as a container and the other as a relation between things.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harvey 1969
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the second critique initially appears less tractable, as it questions the very use of computer methods.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Topology distinguishes spatial objects that should be considered different on account of the way in which they relate to their neighbours and, for that reason, it has a close affinity with the relative model of space.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, artificial intelligence researchers, including many specialists in sociological simulation, are actively moving beyond traditional computational theory of mind and tackling issues such as the social construction of emotions (Cañamero and de Velde 2000) and the idea that cognition is not somehow separate from engagement with the world (Maris and te Boekhorst 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cañamero and de Velde 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Maris and te Boekhorst 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“At the root of his doubt is the well-known critique of computational theory of mind (Dreyfus 1972; Searle 1992), which argues that traditional artificial intelligence and computational methods simply do not capture the real nature of thinking and knowledge.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dreyfus 1972
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Searle 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“much archaeological research conducted since the 1970s has been conducted in processual vein, that is, broadly predicated on the assumption that the methods of the natural sciences can be used to explain the subject matter of the social sciences.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Euclidean geometry has long been associated with the absolute concept of space.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The entity model has some affinity to the philosophical relative concept of space, at least to the extent that it organises information by entity rather than by a set of predetermined locations in space.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Archaeological users of GIS have made suggestions that may go some way to addressing the first of these critiques.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
GIS has matured to the point where non-specialists can use relatively user-friendly software to solve real archaeological problems.
“The study of geographical information systems (GIS) has now matured to the point where non-specialists can take advantage of relatively user-friendly software to help them solve real archaeological problems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The application of methods like creating an elevation model from widely spaced contour lines is likely to produce highly unsatisfactory results and interpretative errors.
“none that we know of would warn that the application of this method to widely spaced contours is likely to produce highly unsatisfactory results that could lead to a host of interpretative errors further down the line.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Researchers who become overdependent on the data management abilities of GIS may shy away from tackling more analytical questions.
“there is a risk that researchers who become overdependent on the data management abilities of GIS may shy away from tackling more analytical questions simply because it is not immediately obvious which buttons to push.”
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“By calculating and storing conductivity from each raster cell to all other adjacent raster cells based on a usersupplied function, both isotropic (conductivity neither benefited nor hindered by direction) and anisotropic costs (conductivity is direction-dependent) can be incorporated into the LCP analysis (Conolly & Lake, 2006, pp. 217-221;Wheatley & Gillings, 2002, pp. 137-140).”
From Probabilistic modelling for incorporating uncertainty in least cost path results: a postdictive roman road case study (2021) · cites this paper as Conolly & Lake, 2006
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“To avoid corner-connected cells with high costs surrounded by cells of low friction [Conolly and Lake 2006: 216], buffers for linear features like the water courses were computed before converting them to raster format [Herzog 2013b].”
From Issues in replication and stability of least-cost path calculations (2022) · cites this paper as Conolly and Lake 2006: 216
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Recording the evidence
“In contrast, a programme of field survey by surface collection is more likely to be predicated on the absolute concept of space”
§ Recording the evidence
“The requirements of the two different archaeological problems just outlined will best be met using different models of space: the entity model in the first case and the relative model in the second”
Citations
Cites
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–764 of 764
Gutiérrez, R. (2025) · Arqueología · doi:10.34096/arqueologia.t31.n1.14227
Los recursos tecnológicos en el estudio histórico del reinado de Atahualpa
Uscocovich-Guiracocha, D. F., Martínez, E. J. F., Cedeño, G. S., & Melena, W. P. G. (2025) · Pacha Revista de Estudios Contemporáneos del Sur Global · doi:10.46652/pacha.v6i18.410
Barrientos, G., Catella, L., & Morales, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology · doi:10.3389/fearc.2025.1521035
Nikšić, P., & Škrgulja, J. (2025) · Proceedings from the Scientific Conference Methodology and Archaeometry · doi:10.17234/metarh.2025.6
Xu, Z., & Ren, W. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8034452/v1
Visibility and spatial organization in the prehistoric rock-cut tomb necropolis of Menorca
Pastor, S. C. (2025) · Virtual Archaeology Review · doi:10.4995/var.2024.24409
Τρυφωνίδου, Ά. (2024) · Dione (University of Piraeus) · doi:10.26267/unipi_dione/3909
Goodwin, G. (2018) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska)
MOOving West: assessing the role of waterways in the Neolithization of Ebro, Po and Rhône basins
PIRRONE, G. (2024) · Electronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa)
Proceedings of 2025 EIID International Conference
(2022) · European Scientific e-Journal · doi:10.47451/col-036-2025
Sítios Arqueológicos na Área Diretamente Afetada da Central Geradora Hidrelétrica (CGH) Marini
de Souza, C. C. M., Chinikoski, M. B., & Cassiano, C. C. (2025) · Clio Arqueológica · doi:10.51359/2448-2331.2025.265568
ÖZDİLEK, B., & Sönmez, M. N. (2025) · Seramik Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.55061/srmka.1847154
Rapakko, J. (2025) · JOURNAL OF GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY · doi:10.32028/jga.v10i.3354
Coins as proxy for urban development: Rethinking Augusta Vindelicum via digital geonumismatics
Bettineschi, C., Reuter, S., Gairhos, S., & Sojc, N. (2026) · Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage · doi:10.1016/j.daach.2026.e00523
Pistone, I. (2026) · BDC. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini · doi:10.6093/2284-4732/13374
Lundin, J., Boström, S., & Westermark, A. (2026) · Lithic Technology · doi:10.1080/01977261.2026.2640658
La recerca sobre el paisatge rural medieval en l’era digital
Sala, M. S. (2025) · Estudis d història agrària · doi:10.1344/eha.2025.37.87-106
Monete, circolazione ed economia nel Lazio meridionale in età tardoantica e altomedievale
Marani, F. (2016) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/360c39a3z1358z49d4zb46az00c65794ea15
Morales-Aguilar, C. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/a30555a9z61eaz4dc7zb304za0023f1cd5ad
Remapping the Senegambian megaliths: Beyond the culture area paradigm
Gokee, C., Athie, A. H., Thiaw, I., & Ndiaye, A. (2025) · Afriques · doi:10.4000/161vx
Mapping Power: A Landscape Approach to Etruscan Urbanisation and Territorial Control
Zeviani, C. (2026) · Land · doi:10.3390/land15050699
Cocca, E., Montagnetti, R., & Cattani, M. (2026) · Peer Community Journal · doi:10.24072/pcjournal.762
Grigoropoulos, D., & Evangelidis, V. (2026) · Palgrave studies in economic history · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21355-6_6
Alshami, A., & Metwaly, M. (2026) · Land · doi:10.3390/land15060894
Lombardi, M., & Soncini, A. (2026) · Time and Mind · doi:10.1080/1751696x.2026.2675340
Everyday Reorientation: Critical Cartographic Praxis in Non-Specialist Archaeological Maps
Kratimenos, P. (2026) · Open Archaeology · doi:10.1515/opar-2025-0084
Dhanushka, J., & Morimoto, T. (2026) · Heritage · doi:10.3390/heritage9070257
Ceka, N., Hoxha, E., Pekmezi, J., Hobdari, E., Karriqi, A., Leka, E., Alikaj, P., Zefi, P., Kujtila, E., Alla, E., et al. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1014713
A Spatial Analysis Model for Exploring Human-Environment Interactions
Fernández, P. T. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009659949
Begade, S. (2026) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-026-09812-1
Corzón, S. T., Refojos, B. X. C., & Prats, I. S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10252421/v1
Pastor, A. W. (2026) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska)
Fonseca, M. I. G., & Mal, S. (2026) · Cities, heritage and transformation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85948-9_11
Rueda, K. Á., & Domingo-Ribas, G. (2026) · Zephyrvs · doi:10.14201/zephyrus202697171194
Continuity and Discontinuity in Artefact Distributions from Multi-Period Archaeological Sites
Oksanen, E., Bevan, A., & Carter, A. (2026) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-026-09821-0
Estrada, D. J. C., Navarro, P. R., & Piqueras, T. G. (2026) · Built Heritage · doi:10.1186/s43238-026-00307-2
Les concepts en sciences de l’Antiquité : mode d’emploi
Dan, A., Zahariade, M., Tymoshenko, M. M., & Vinogradov, A. (2026) · Dialogues d histoire ancienne · doi:10.3917/dha.521.0279
Demirciler, V., & Oğuz-Kırca, E. D. (2026) · Proceedings of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts · doi:10.4081/peasa.86
(2026) · Bidge Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.70269/ubdw831vftkq
Jiménez-Higueras, Á. (2025) · Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada · doi:10.30827/cpag.v35i0.30215
Курганы «с усами» на Востоке Казахстана: методика поиска и результаты
Pushkarev, A. A., & Айткали, А. К. (2026) · Археология Евразийских степей · doi:10.24852/2587-6112.2026.4.187.200
Viae ad Deultum: Spatial Perspectives on Roman Road Infrastructure in Southeastern Thrace
Cholakov, I. D., Grigorov, A. B., Dakasheva, P., & Kirilova, I. (2026) · Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology Supplements | Българско е-Списание за Археология Supplementa
Bekavac, S., Štublin, D., & Domazetović, F. (2026) · Heritage · doi:10.3390/heritage9100410
Spatial organisation of early medieval ironworking
Szalontai, C., Gallina, Z., & Gulyás, G. (2026) · Archaeologiai Értesítő · doi:10.1556/0208.2026.00133
Seeing the Skyline: A Continuous Surface Approach to Landscape Visual Quality
Li, Z., Liu, S., & Zhao, J. (2026) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-026-09836-7
Crosilla, F. (2026) · Applied Geomatics · doi:10.1007/s12518-026-00814-y
Domingo-Ribas, G., Carrer, F., & Rueda, K. Á. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11096997/v1
Gilio, B., Franco, N. V., Fiore, D., & Vetrisano, L. (2021) · Comechingonia. Revista De Arqueología · doi:10.37603/2250.7728.v25.n3.30434
(2012) · Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Metadata
- Authors
- Conolly, J., & Lake, M.
- Affiliations
- Trent University (CA)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2006-05-04
- OpenAlex
- W297006095
- Cited by
- 761
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 14.59
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeological Research and Protection
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Keywords
- geographic information systems, archaeological GIS, spatial analysis, spatial queries, digital elevation model, map algebra, visibility analysis, network analysis, hydrological modeling, erosion modeling, metadata, cultural resource management, database design
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
