The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Introduction
Abstract
Although spatial thinking has long been a part of anthropological inquiry, it has waxed and waned in its perceived utility and centrality to the field. Although the papers in this volume attest to a vigorous tradition of spatial thinking in anthropology and further suggest that, for at least some branches of the field, spatial thinking and analysis are truly central to their definition and mission, it is nevertheless clear that this has not always been the case. Further, despite differences in historical trajectories of development between the two major subfields of anthropology—cultural anthropology and archaeology— in terms of the way space has been used, it is also clear that the two subfields share a number of common interests and themes that deserve discussion and exploration. This exploration is not only interesting from a purely historical perspective, but also has a very practical, down-to-earth dimension. The literature on the history of science is replete with cases of communication failures both within and between scientific disciplines. While in many cases this is merely annoying (different terms used to describe the same procedure, for instance), there are occasions when these failures lead to the creation of a highly idiosyncratic jargon used by small cliques of investigators, which clearly offers the opportunity to inhibit scholarly communication. This, in turn, can lead to redundancy of effort, failure to learn from the mistakes of others, and wasted time and money. By providing a forum in which similarities and differences can be examined, the natural tendency of scientific disciplines to form these cliques can be overcome. I intend this paper to be such a forum for an exploration of the ways in which geographic information systems (GIS) have been employed by anthropologists and archaeologists as represented by the authors of the papers presented in this volume. I will briefly describe the GIS for those readers unfamiliar with it and then turn to a review of the history of spatial thinking and the kinds of tools used to implement this thinking for each of the subdisciplines.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Whilst generating them has always been a relatively trivial task, knowing what to do with them once generated has proven to be far more difficult.”
From Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility (2017) · cites this paper as Aldenderfer 1996
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene
Verhagen, P., & Whitley, T. G. (2012) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-011-9102-7 · Cited by 190
Visibility Studies in Archaeology: A Review and Case Study
Lake, M. W., & Woodman, P. E. (2003) · Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design · doi:10.1068/b29122 · Cited by 110
Making space for an archaeology of place
University of Southampton, & Wheatley, D. (2004) · Internet Archaeology · doi:10.11141/ia.15.10 · Cited by 88
Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility
Gillings, M. (2017) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.004 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Aldenderfer, M.
- Venue
- Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 1996-10-03
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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