SPACE SYNTAX ON LANDSCAPE-SCALE: UNDERSTANDING SPATIAL CONFIGURATION OF IRON GATES

Traditionally, analysis of archaeological landscapes has drawn on two separate theoretical traditions. Functionalist explanation in the tradition of Renfrew (1973) emphasises general patterns in economic and social structures, and the development of formal methods. Approaches informed by phenomenology, such as those by Tilley (1994) or Thomas (1999), emphasise human-scale experience of landscape and the ‘constructed’ nature of space leading to, for example, suggestions of ‘circular landscapes’ in the Neolithic of Britain (Bradley 1998). In the last decade, approaches that draw on both of these have emerged in the context of GIS based landscape studies. One such area has been visibility analysis (e.g. Wheatley, 1995; Exon, Gaffney, Woodward & Yorston, 2000) in which formal methods for analysing visual characteristics of landscape build up from an understanding of perception at the scale of individual human actors. Although successful, most of these have dealt with visibility from static locations and ignored (orminimally considered) the effects of movement. This project centres on the investigation of movement and perception within archaeological landscapes; intending to study dynamic changes in visual envelope afforded active, mobile agents. By comparing archaeological features with these changing patterns of visibility, the aim is to form hypotheses regarding potential modes of interaction with and hence development of the continually evolving cultural continuum that is landscape. Patterns of changing visibility are being further investigated by incorporating some elements of three dimensional visualisation in order to take account of (for example) colour, lighting and atmospheric models; key factors which affect human perception of space. These issues are particularly significant in the context of later Neolithic Britain, in which a series of monumental forms seem to have developed that formalise aspects of movement through landscape (e.g. cursus monuments, avenues). Consequently, the research focuses on later Neolithic landscapes including Avebury and the Dorset Cursus complex. This paper presents some of the methodological and technological developments to date, including the development of a computational framework for the investigation involving the fusion of a Geographic Information System and three-dimensional technologies. In addition to the development of approaches to viewshed analysis within the GIS, the use of a threedimensional modelling package to produce rendered views from the GIS will also be discussed and some preliminary results will be presented. Image processing techniques for the analysis of these views with also be discussed. Another aspect of the proposed framework is the use of a gaming engine to provide an interactive, dynamic three-dimensional interface linked to the GIS and rendering suite.

University of New Mexico Press (in association with the University of Calgary Press), 2006

Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology is an edited collection of thirty-seven chapters exploring a number of different archaeological settings and incorporating a broad range of methodological and theoretical approaches to spatial analysis. They reflect the roots of spatial archaeology in approaches such as settlement pattern analysis and also look at innovative new directions in the field, such as landscape archaeology, space syntax studies, and the correlation of archaeological and linguistic 'cultures' (in the form of regional dialects revealed in ancient texts). This range of focus provides a valuable snapshot of the state of spatial research in archaeology as it enters the twenty-first century and reflects its increasing breadth and popularity among archaeological researchers. The chapters were selected (and developed from) papers presented at the 34th annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference held at the University of Calgary and are designed to examine human interaction with the environment, both physically and cognitively.

Journal of Human Evolution, 2023

Although the 'organization of space' is said to be one of the defining characteristics of modern human behavior, the identification and documentation of such organization has proven to be elusive, especially as rendered in artifact patterning. Without directly comparing artifact patterns within multiple sites, there is no benchmark with which to conclude one site to be more or less 'organized' than another. We can objectively identify patterns within the distribution of archaeological materials, but the decision of whether that patterning constitutes as 'organized' is entirely subjective without a comparative model. In this paper, I present the results of a study in which the spatial distribution of artifacts within nine Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites in France are directly compared to one another, and discernible changes in patterning can be identified. The differences in spatial patterning between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites suggest that the organization of space likely became increasingly formalized into and throughout the Upper Paleolithic alongside other cultural norms of behavior. Though more sites are needed to thoroughly document this phenomenon, this study suggests that direct comparisons of spatial patterning have the potential to yield more objective results on the question of spatial organization.

My research has shown that the type of regional archaeological data analysis required by landscape archaeological approaches is an area where both theory and method are still in their infancy. High-level theories about the occurrence, scope, and effects of processes such as centralization, urbanization, and Hellenization/Romanization cannot yet be supported by middle range theory, which itself cannot be developed until the basic business of generating information of sufficient quality about the archaeological record has been tackled. Currently, archaeological data can be made to fit almost any interpretation generated, ultimately, on the basis of the ancient written sources. If we are to escape from this selfreinforcing cycle, research should perhaps no longer be focused on the classical themes generated by culture-historical approaches, but should seek its own proper field of operation. In the area of methods and methodology, I have demonstrated the pervasive influence of systemati...

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1996

In the 15 th Century, many European communities came to India in order to establish trade that resulted in colonization of whom, the British were most successful. In India, the initial colonial buildings (of the Europeans) were designed to meet the specific demands of colonial style of life and they were consciously designed to differ from original native styles. Over time, British builders in the Empire also had to take into account the demands of the climate of the region. (Metcalfe, 37-65). This resulted in development of bungalows and other forms of houses for the Europeans in India. The Indians, on the other hand, were also influenced by the colonizers and, hence, they frequently used classical motifs and European styles in their own houses. The influences resulted in buildings, various functional spaces are organized as per the behavioral patterns of users. These behavioral patterns are, in turn, governed by the cultural and social norms, which get 'ingrained' in the s...

Space - Archaeology's Final Frontier? An Intercontinental Approach, 2007

My research has shown that the type of regional archaeological data analysis required by landscape archaeological approaches is an area where both theory and method are still in their infancy. High-level theories about the occurrence, scope, and effects of processes such as centralization, urbanization, and Hellenization/Romanization cannot yet be supported by middle range theory, which itself cannot be developed until the basic business of generating information of sufficient quality about the archaeological record has been tackled. Currently, archaeological data can be made to fit almost any interpretation generated, ultimately, on the basis of the ancient written sources. If we are to escape from this selfreinforcing cycle, research should perhaps no longer be focused on the classical themes generated by culture-historical approaches, but should seek its own proper field of operation. In the area of methods and methodology, I have demonstrated the pervasive influence of systematic research and visibility biases on the patterns that are present in the archaeological data generated over the past 50 years or so. There are mechanisms at work, both in the traditional archaeological interpretation of limited numbers of excavated sites and historical sources, and in the landscape archaeological approach, that cause the systematic undervaluation of unobtrusive remains. The significance of systematic biases in both the coarse site-based data sets resulting from desktop and ‘topographic’ studies and the more detailed site-based or ‘continuous’ data resulting from intensive field surveys has become much clearer as a result of the studies reported here. This should have practical consequences for the ways in which we study the existing archaeological record, plan future landscape archaeological research, and conduct field surveys. Site databases, the traditional starting point for regional archaeological studies, can no longer be taken at face value; rather, they require careful source criticism before being used to support specific arguments and hypotheses about settlement and land use dynamics. My studies have also shown that future data collection, whether through field survey, excavation or other methods, has to take place in a much more methodical manner if we are to produce data that are sufficiently standardized to be successfully exchanged, compared, and interpreted by others – guidelines for which should become embodied in an international standard defining ‘best practice in landscape archaeology’.

We know over 200 Sardinian dolmens of various types. The rise of the phenomenon seems possible to ascribe dur- ing the culture of San Michele of Ozieri (Late Neolithic, 4000–3300 BC). However, the Sardinian dolmens had the widest possible dissemination during the Chalcolithic. The Sardinian phenomenon shows a close relationship with dol- mens of Catalonia, Pyrenees, non-coastal departments of French-midi, Corse and Puglia. In the study of megalithic tombs, the analysis of the relationship with the surround- ing territory can be an important aid. In this work, we place dolmens and landscape in connection. To understand this relationship, we used the tools offered by GIS. This ap- proach – based on geo-referenced data and a three-dimen- sional representation of landscape features – can assist the archaeologist in interpreting the ancient landscape. Among the potential of GIS, the possibility to evaluate – with the cre- ation of a model of the costs of travel – the main trends re- lating to the movement in relation to the geomorphological characteristics of the territory is particularly interesting. To test the possibilities offered by this type of analysis, a sam- ple area in north-east of the island of Sardinia (Italy) was chosen. The results of cost distance and visibility analyses showed locations in areas that would enhance the function of spatial markers linked to transit or contact areas, for most of the analysed samples. These were probably in connection with pathways functional to internal trade between islander groups. Furthermore, these are probably related to short or long processes of transhumance.

2021