Philip Verhagen

Past in Place: The role of Geo-ICT in present-day archaeology

The steadily growing bond between Geo-ICT and archaeology, which follows from the inherently spatial nature of the archaeological record and its interdisciplinary character, involves a wide range of spatial applications from subsurface modelling to distribution maps and predictive modelling. Despite the potential of Geo-ICT for archaeology, its penetration in the discipline is not as extensive as might be expected. The role of education and the approach to technology and information science that archaeologists have adopted are important factors in this development. More specifically, the adoption of Geo-ICT in archaeology is influenced by the field of activity, the nature of the archaeological record and the theoretical perspective. The last factor is particularly influential because it determines which concept of human space is used and consequently the most feasible Geo-ICT methods. Archaeologists are less worried about the geomodelling framework than about the lack of financial resources for software, data and basic training, the limitations of Geo-ICT methods for 3D and temporal modelling, and problems of data conversion and sustainability. The integration of Geo-ICT in archaeology would benefit from a new theoretical framework, together with a concerted effort from different sciences to set up campus-wide support and Geo-ICT infrastructure for multidisciplinary research and collaboration.

Archaeological prediction and risk management : alternatives to current practice

Contents - 6 Preface - 8 1. Archaeological prediction and risk management - 10 2. The future of archaeological predictive modelling5 - 20 3. On costs and benefits in archaeological prospection - 28 4. The high price or the first prize for the archaeological predictive model - 34 5. Archaeology as a risk in spatial planning: manoeuvring between objectivity and subjectivity - 42 6. Archaeological predictions contested: the role of the Dutch Indicative Map of Archaeological Values (IKAW) in local planning procedures - 50 7. Testing archaeological predictive models: a rough guide - 64 8. Predictive models put to the test - 72 9. Dealing with uncertainty in archaeological prediction - 124

Testing the Robustness of Local Network Metrics in Research on Archeological Local Transport Networks

With the increased application of network analysis in archaeology to form hypotheses, particularly concerning the research on mobility, a need has arisen to validate the network analysis results. This paper presents a case study of a local transport network in the Dutch part of the Roman limes between 70-270 AD created using a least-cost approach, and tests the robustness of the local network metric of betweenness centrality and the archaeological interpretation thereof. It is demonstrated that while the majority of sites have a robust and thus reliable betweenness centrality, there are still a large number of sites for which the network measurements are very dependent on the precise structure of the network present. Testing robustness of network analysis results thus proves a useful tool both for validating the network modeling results as well as the archaeological interpretations of that network.

Site Discovery and Evaluation Through Minimal Interventions: Core Sampling, Test Pits and Trial Trenches

Non-invasive techniques for mapping archaeological remains and related characteristics of the soil are becoming cheaper, easier to apply and generally more successful. But these techniques still have a major drawback: they do not provide direct information about what is in the ground. What does a geophysical anomaly tell us about soil conditions at a certain depth? How should we interpret the features recognized on an aerial photograph, a satellite image or a LiDAR-based elevation model? At some point we need ancillary data to support the interpretations made on the basis of non-invasive survey data. In practice, the majority of archaeological surveys nowadays are still done using techniques that rely on direct observation of the soil and the archaeological remains found in it. This is either in the form of a field survey, which does not enter the soil, or in the form of ‘minimal interventions’: invasive techniques like core sampling, test pitting and trial trenching that allow us to observe a limited portion of the subsoil. This chapter gives an introduction to the existing invasive minimal intervention techniques, together with a description of their potential and limitations, and discusses best practices for using them in conjunction with non-invasive techniques.

Spatial analysis in archaeology: moving into new territories

GIS has become an indispensable tool for archaeologists to organize, explore and analyse spatial data. In this introductory chapter, an historical overview of the development of GIS use in archaeology is given. It focuses on three major fields of application: site location analysis, modelling movement and transport and visibility analysis. This state of the art is illustrated by discussing three different case studies. Finally, some thoughts on the future of GIS in archaeology are presented.