Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Introduction

Aldenderfer, Mark·1996·Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems

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

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780195085754.003.0004

Cites

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Aldenderfer, M.
Venue
Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems
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