See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274831722

Geographic Information Systems in

Archaeology

Chapter January 1996

CITATIONS READS

6 585

1 author:

Herbert D. G. Maschner
University of South Florida
127 PUBLICATIONS 1,275 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Herbert D. G. Maschner on 04 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geographic Information Systems
in Archaeology
Herbert D.G. Maschner

Introduction

The purpose of this book is to illustrate the uses and potentials of

geographicinformation systems (GIS) in modern archaeology. The chapters in
this volume demonstrate that old archaeological problems can be addressed
in more sophisticated ways through the use of GIS and new research ques
tions can be developed because of the capabilities of the new technology. This
volume introduces the archaeologist to some of the important issues in GIS
development in archaeology and presents a number of analyses demonstrat
ing aspects of its use in the study of the past. This is not a geographic informa
tion systems textbook, nor is it simply a compendium of case studies. There
are a number of books and edited volumes currently on the market that
present excellent case and methodological studies of the uses of GIS in archae
ology and anthropology (Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Behrens and Sever
1991; Gaffney and Stancic 1991b; Judge and Sebastian 1988). The chapters
presented in this volume add to this growing literature by offering an in-
depth and sometimes critical look at the capabilities and limitations of new
computer-based methods in the context of modern archaeological problems.
Organized into four sections, the chapters that follow offer perspectives on
exploratory data analysis and visualization, cost surfaces, viewshed or line-of-
site (LOS) analyses and catchments, site location and environmental model
ing, and further directions for GIS in archaeology. Through these contribu
tions, the reader will gain an understanding of both the potential and the
problems of invoking a GIS-based research program. Importantly, the chap
ters range from simple, environmentally based models and applications to
complex, mathematically founded methodological studies. The result is a
collection of essays important to both the novice GIS user and those users
with more advanced needs and applications.

New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research,
edited by Herbert D. G. Maschner. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper
No. 23. 1996 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. All rights reserved.
ISBN 0-88104-079-7.
2 | H. D. G. Maschner
What Is a GIS?

This is a good point to address a number of critical issues in GIS

and to present important terms and principles. There is no perfect or accepted
definition for either the structure or the capabilities of a GIS. In archaeology, it
is generally accepted that geographic information systems are simply spatially
referenced databasespoints or areas on a map having a direct link to a
particular record in a database (Green 1990:2; Kvamme 1989). Their capacity
for storing, mathematically manipulating, and visually displaying spatially
referenced data differentiates them from CAD (Computer Aided Design) and
CAM (Computer Aided Mapping) programs (Green 1990:2;Savage 1990a:23).
GIS is a term that is usually applied to computer systems that have the ability
to interrelate multivariate spatial data sets (Rhind 1981).
The most succinct description of the technological aspects of a GIS is a
model presented by Marble (1990:12). He states that a GIS is composed of four
interrelated subsystems (1990:12). They include a data entry subsystem that
transfers both analog (such as paper maps) and digital data (such as
computer-based site information) to a storage device. Today this is primarily
done by digitizing maps, but it could also involve a tape drive, a CD-ROM, a
digital scanner, or a global positioning device (GPS) for downloading data. It
must also have a data storage and retrieval subsystem. For most users this
consists of a computer and a data storage device such as a hard drive or a tape
drive. It requires a data manipulation and analysis subsystem. This is the
software that allows one to conduct spatial analyses, query the data, create
new data, and derive statistics. The software comes in a number of formats
(discussed below) and runs on many different computer platforms. Lastly, a
data visualization and reporting subsystem, namely, high resolution graphic
monitors, plotters, printers, and other output devices, is necessary to graphi
cally display and print the results of a spatial analysis or query.
GIS data are organized into layers or coverages. The layers can include such
features as contours, hydrology, roads, soil types, vegetation types, and
archaeological sites (see Kvamme [1989] for an overview). One of the most
important features of a GIS is the ability to construct new data layers from
those already associated with maps. These might include aspect, slope or
grade, view, or other features generated from a contour coverage. Additional
data types could include aerial photographs or satellite images that are either
used as independent coverages or used to generate data layers, such as
structural geology, vegetation, and soil moisture.
When constructing a GIS for research, it is important to build a model of the
kinds of data that are expected to be of importance to the analysis. For exam
ple, Figure 1-1 is a model recently constructed for the Lower Alaska Peninsula
Project (Maschner 1994; Maschner et al. 1994). A geographic information
system was constructed on the basis of field investigations, satellite images,
aerial photographs, data collected by a GPS, and maps. Although not inclu
sive of all the possible data types, a model such as this can offer the researcher
an understanding of the data necessary to address the hypotheses at hand and
how the data will be organized and integrated.
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 3

Archaeological
Data
MultiBpectralSPOT
Images Avian, Mammal,

Panchfomalic
K and Fish Data

Vegetation
SPOT Imams Data

AHAP CJR
Photography

Urge-Scale Black
& White Photographs
8
7
Contour Map
DavelopmerU

N
Hydrology

Geology
PaJeo-landscape
Reconstruction

HU
Exploratory Data
GIS Data Coverages Analysis in SAS
Climatic Exposure and S-Plus

Qeomorphic Landlorm
Report: Preliminary Cultural
Slope
Ecological and
Aspecl
Paleoecological Analysis of
Elevation ihe Lower Alaska Peninsula.
Viewshed New research proposals
Distance to Fresh Water
Distance to Shoreline Logistic Regression
Vegetation Analyses and I og linear
Archaeological Features
Modeling
Construction of
Survey Sampling
Strategy

YT
Landscape Fleconstruction
It It
I Climatic Reconstruction
and Landscape History

Predictive Model ot
Site Location

Figure 1-1. GIS model for the Lower Alaska Peninsula Project.

The user must be concerned with both the quality and the accuracy of the
data. For some areas, the single most important data coverage will be the
digital elevation model (DEM), sometimes referred to as a digital terrain
model (DTM). The DEM is most often constructed from data digitized from a
contour map, but elevation data are often inaccurate. So all questions that
could be asked of the data must take into account the data's accuracy. This is
also the case with data digitized from soil or other thematic maps where the
maps give an impression of accuracy never intended by the field scientist.
Simply because the computer will produce a number to four decimal places
does not imply that the result is accurate to any decimal places.
GIS data coverages are usually stored in one of two primary formats
raster or vector. Figure 1-2 illustrates the basic differences between raster and
vector systems. Vector systems, which are more often used in facilities man
agement or land management, have what is termed a topological structure
consisting of points, lines, and polygons. They are the kinds of systems we
usually associate with maps. A vector system is most advantageous in the
management of facilities, utilities, roads, cities, and other entities where many
of the data types are easily conceived of as points (traffic lights, manhole
4 | H. D. G. Maschner

Figure 1-2. Difference between a raster anda vector GIS.

covers, stop signs, water hydrants), lines (streets, pipelines, power lines), or
polygons (towns, blocks, properties, houses). Unfortunately, vector GIS pack
ages can be expensive, making raster-based systems more economical,
although not necessarily a more appropriate choice.
In archaeology, raster-based GIS programs predominate. In these systems,
the area under study is gridded (as a matrix), and each grid unit has a row
and column coordinate. A number of data categories might be attached to
each grid square. Ideally, the size of the grid square is dictated by the research
question being investigated. More often, as shall be seen in some of the
following presentations, grid size is determined by limits in the software, the
hardware, or the quality of the data. The reason raster systems are used more
often in archaeology is less intuitive. In the past, raster systems were often less
expensive. Access to MS-DOS programs such as IDRISI and OSU Map-for-the-
PC and to the public domain UNIX GRASS GIS brought GIS capabilities into
the realm of archaeological budgets. However, archaeologists also found grid-
based systems more intuitive because that is how archaeologists analytically
view sites and landscapes and because it is much easier to extract data from
grid matrices for quantitative analyses.
Until recently, the researcher had to pick either raster or vector systems.
Today most GIS software can handle both kinds of data, albeit to different
levels of sophistication. For example, ERDAS and GRASS are two popular
programs often used for the manipulation of images and raster GIS data.
ARC/INFO, on the other hand, is a popular and common vector GIS. In real
ity, the newest version of ARC/INFO has a sophisticated raster package
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 5
(Grid), and ERDAS and GRASS can now do much with vector data coverages.
The goal of the archaeologist is to pick, through a careful research design, the
analysis tools necessary for the research problem at hand.
In this book a number of different software packages and computer systems
are illustrated. They include ARC/INFO on UNIX and DOS systems, IDRISI
and OSU Map-for-the-PC on DOS platforms, GRASS on UNIX platforms,
SPANS running under OS2, ERDAS on UNIX, Map II on the Mac, and home
grown varieties. While these are some of the most popular programs, there
are dozens of GIS packages on the market to choose from, many of which will
serve the kinds of questions archaeology is currently asking.
For more in-depth discussions of topics found in this introduction and in
the chapters that follow, the reader can turn to the growing body of literature
on GIS-related topics that includes GIS in environment and land management
(Aronoff 1989; Burrough 1986;Goodchild et al. 1993;Heit and Shortreid 1991),
GIS method and theory (Parr 1993; Peuquet and Marble 1990; Ripple 1989),
GIS and cartographic modeling (Garson and Biggs 1992; Tomlin 1990), and
GIS in archaeology and anthropology (Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Allen
et al. 1990). There also are a number of important articles in both geography
(Cowen 1988; Lindenberg and Fisher 1988; Tomlinson 1972, 1987) and
archaeology (Gaffney and Stanac 1991a; Harris 1985, 1986; Kvamme 1985a,
1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1989; Wansleeben 1988).

New Methods, Old Problems

Let us turn to a consideration of the components of this volume.

The book is organized in four broad and somewhat arbitrary sections. Several
of the essays could easily be placed in more than one section, and the chapters
are in no way inclusive of the use of GIS in archaeology. Yet, they provide
some of the most detailed methodological discussions of GIS in archaeology
and represent important directions in this emerging field.

Exploratory Data Analysis and Visualization

Among the most productive avenues of inquiry in GIS-based re

search are the areas of graphical representation, exploratory data analysis, and
spatial statistics. Chapters 2 and 3 specifically use these GIS characteristics.
Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is defined by Tukey (1977, 1980) as
problem-driven exploration of the data (see also Hartwig 1979; Sibley 1987;
Velleman and Hoaglin 1981). Although EDA may lead to hypotheses, the
primary purpose is exploring trends in the data at hand (Wilkinson 1990:3).
EDA has had a scattered impact on the field of archaeology (see Fade/ et al.
1990; Kvamme and Kohler 1988; Limp and Farley 1986; Williams, et al 1990).
This is probably due to our almost mind-boggling preoccupation with
hypothesis-driven deductive research, which has prevailed over exploratory,
inductive research, even though it is no less problem oriented. Archaeologists
need to be reassured that it is scientifically legitimate to discover patterns in
6 | H. D. G. Maschner
the data through exploratory data analysis. It is satisfactory, and sometimes
enlightening, to simply use statistical and graphical routines to identify
patterning in the archaeological record that can then provide the basis for
further deductive inquiry.
The recent proliferation in computer-based graphics software allows
archaeologists to ask, What do these data look like? or What are the structural
relationships between these variables? Behaviorally meaningful patterns will
often emerge in the absence of preconceived hypotheses. Of course, these
methods also let the archaeologist identify absolutely meaningless relation
ships.
As Chapters 2 and 3 demonstrate, the visualization capabilities built into
most GIS programs are particularly suited to the exploration of archaeological
data. Geographers have recognized from the first days of their discipline that
graphical display, in the form of thematic maps and summary graphs, can be
an important means for recognizing the relationships among variables (do
Toit et al. 1986; Hearnshaw and Unwin 1994; Sibly 1987). Publications demon
strating the usefulness of graphical display and the most effective means for
graphical presentation are becoming more common (Post and Hin 1992).
Computer software for graphical display is abundant, but several packages
are noteworthy for their orientation toward graphical exploratory data analy
sis. They include the statistics packages S-Plus, SYSTAT, and SAS, and the GIS
packages ARC/INFO and IDRISI, to name just a few of the most popular. The
kinds of graphics one chooses to use are also critical in EDA, and much has
been written on the subject (Bertin 1983; Cleland 1985; Tufte 1983).
Related closely to EDA in GIS analysis are a number of spatial analysis
techniques and important spatial statistics (Fotheringham and Rogerson 1994;
Haining 1990; Hodder 1972, 1978). Of these, spatial autocorrelation is an
important part of spatial analysis techniques (Anselin 1992; Cliff and Ord
1973; Cresse 1993; Goodchild 1986; Griffith 1987, 1988). Data are spatially
autocorrelated if, for example, the value for point "a" (or cell 0,1) can be used
to predict the value of point "b" (or cell 0,2) solely because of their spatial
proximity. Often lost on archaeologists is that if the data are spatially autocor
related, as many archaeological data are, then none of the basic assumptions
of normality or independence are met, reducing the reliability of most stan
dard statistical tests. Kvamme has done most of the research on the use of
spatial statistics in archaeology (1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1993, 1994; see also
Attwell and Fletcher 1987), building on earlier studies by Hodder and a few
others (Hodder and Orton 1976).
For the last ten years James Ebert has been interested in the relationships
between distributional data, visualization, and archaeological interpretation
(1992). In Chapter 2, using lithic scatter data from New Mexico, Ebert, Camilli,
and Berman address the site concept, using GIS techniques of visualization
and data management. Here the authors take us through the mechanics of
analyzing distributional datathe kinds of details and data required and the
basic assumptions inherent in these kinds of analyses. The authors make a
critical point that in interpreting density surfaces it is important to note that
there is no unambiguous theoretical basis for interpreting these surfaces.
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 7
Higher artifact densities do not necessarily reflect activity frequencies. That is
to say, when dealing with visual or graphic representations of the data, the
display does not inherently mean anything. Graphical relationships are what
we assign meaning to, not the reverse.
In Chapter 3, Kvamme demonstrates the beauty of integrating exploratory
data analysis, graphical display, spatial statistics, and GIS capabilities. By
using GIS as the graphical and database engine, Kvamme seeks out unfore
seen patterns and associations in an effort to better understand the data,
which, he argues, can lead to greater insight and understanding and, ulti
mately, to better theory (see also Kvamme 1994). This contribution takes us
into the domain of a synchronized research effort. We are first presented with
a data set consisting of over 6 ha of lithic scatters in western Colorado. The
data were originally mapped and collected by grid square. GIS visualization
techniques were subsequentially used to show various patterns in the data.
We are led through a series of spatial statistical tests to demonstrate the reality
of the observed patterns. Kvamme then explores a number of theoretical
models that might explain his distributional patterns, replicating one of those
patterns through experimentation and simulation, and thus verifying the
results and adding strength to his interpretations.

Cost Surfaces, Viewshed (or Line-of-Sight [LOS]) Analysis, and

Site Catchments

The next four chapters demonstrate the use of viewsheds (or line-
of-sight analysis), optimum path analysis, site catchment studies, and bound
ary definition. These topics represent a growing area of GIS use in archaeolog
ical research.
Viewsheds are constructed from the interrelationship between a point on
the landscape (the viewer) and a digital representation of the landscape, or
digital elevation model. The result is an image or coverage of all of the possi
ble areas of the landscape visible from any one point. Viewsheds have been
used outside archaeology for some time, especially in relation to architecture
and scenic views in parklands (Higuchi 1988). Only recently have they been
applied to archaeological problems. The first three chapters in this section use
viewsheds, or line-of-site analysis, to address aspects of human behavior that
are otherwise difficult to obtain from archaeological data.
Viewsheds have been most popular in spatial studies of cognition. Gaffney,
Stanac, and Watson (1996) showed the effectiveness of viewsheds in their
study of the positioning of monuments in northern England. In a seminal
work, Lock and Harris (1996) used viewsheds to demonstrate that long
barrows in the Danebury region of England were positioned so that they
could not be seen from any other long barrow. Maschner (1996) used view-
shed analysis on the Northwest Coast of North America to demonstrate that
villages moved to more defensible locations in the Middle to Late Phase tran
sition at approximately A.D. 200-500.
In Chapter 4, Wheatley seeks to understand regional variation in the distri
bution of Neolithic monuments in Wessex, England. He is concerned with
8 \H.D. G. Maschner
how humans perceive landscapes and with the spatial scale of that percep
tionscales "defined in cognitive space." Testing Renfrew's (1973) model of
the distribution and structure of political entities in the region, he detects
fundamental differences in the positions of long barrows in two discrete areas.
In Chapter 5, Madry and Rakos use viewshed analysis and optimum path
analysis to investigate the relationship between Celtic hillforts and Celtic
roads in the Burgundy region of France (see also Crumley and Marquardt
1987; Madry and Crumley 1990). Optimum path analysis consists of determin
ing the easiest route (minimum friction path) between two points (see also
Gaffney and Stancic 1991b; Limp 1991). This can be done in both raster and
vector GIS, although it is more commonly done in raster-based systems by
computing the ease (based on elevation, slope, mode of transportation, or any
other important variables) with which one can move across a grid cell.
In the third essay in this section (Chapter 6), C. Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott
use line-of-sight analyses to investigate the relationship between stone mon
uments and astronomical phenomena on the Isle of Mull, Scotland. The
authors begin their presentation, as did Wheatley (see also Wheatley 1993),
with a call for a more cognitive approach to GIS in archaeology. They argue
for a lesser emphasis on the environment and a greater emphasis on social
and cognitive characteristics of prehistoric human behavior. An important
contribution is their emphasis on the use of multiple viewshed analyses,
which are constructed by combining a number of viewsheds from specific
points (a method employed both by Wheatley and by Madry and Rakos). This
is done under the assumption that the view from a hilltop, for example, is not
culturally significant from a single point. Rather, the combined views from a
number of points around the top of the hill may present a more accurate
picture of what was visible by the inhabitants.
The authors go on to evaluate concepts of testability, deduction, and
hypothesis formation and argue that the paradigm on which classical statistics
are founded may not be appropriate in archaeology. Instead, they suggest that
we need to move toward a more Bayesian approach where prior probabilities
are put forward as a foundation for statistical tests.
The authors of these chapters point out a number of important issues in
viewshed analysis. A basic concern is the relationship between association
and causation. Are the statistical patterns seen in the viewshed data, for
example, simply a product of the natural landscape? This type of question is
not as easy to evaluate as are other procedures because the amount of process
ing time that goes into each viewshed makes a large random sample ex
tremely time-consuming with many computer systems.
Another concern with viewsheds is the "tree problem." Viewsheds are con
structed as if the landscape were treeless, but many landscapes were consid
erably more wooded in prehistory than today. The opposite may also be true.
This is similar to the height-of-viewer problem that is also a consideration
when constructing viewsheds. Both can be easily corrected in most modern
GIS environments by raising or lowering the base elevation of the "viewer"
during viewshed construction.
Distance is another concept in viewshed construction evaluated both by
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 9
Wheatley and by Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott. Wheatley argues that maxi
mum distance in a viewshed should be reduced from infinity because visual
resolution is reduced with distance. Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott further con
tend that (following Fisher 1992) a "cognitive" or "fuzzy" viewshed could be
created by combining a distancedecayfunction with the normal binary view
shed, thereby modeling the degree to which distant objects are on average
actually discernible. They also argue that the curvature of the earth needs to
be accounted for in viewshed construction and provide a formula for a
weighted elevation adjustment with distance from the viewpoint.
Madry and Rakos, as well as Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott, emphasize the
importance of scale in DEM construction for viewshed analysis. Madry and
Rakos reanalyze data originally evaluated at 97-m resolution, using a newly
constructed 20-m resolution DEM, and they find that the results are more
accurate but the patterning less obvious than when the 97-m data were used.
Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott argue that scale needs to be considered before
any viewshed analyses are conducted because a more accurate DEM can
change the outcome. They conclude, however, that the scale of the DEM
necessary for a truly accurate viewshed may be beyond the limits of modern
(affordable) computers.
Aside from viewshed analysis, one of the most revolutionary uses of GIS in
archaeology is in site catchment analysis, boundary construction, and the cre
ation of cost surfaces. In Chapter 5 Madry and Rakos use cost surfaces to
defineoptimum paths. The last contribution in this section (Chapter7) inves
tigates the methodology of cost surfaces, in conjunction with Thiessen poly
gons, to improve the definition of boundaries and territories.
The concept of site catchment analysis is based on the notion that resource
use around habitation sites is distance dependent. Site catchments are gener
ally considered to be circular (Ellison and Harriss 1972:916), but other forms
such as hexagons (Haggett1965:48) and more amorphous shapes that account
for topography (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970) have been proposed. In general,
hunters and gatherers have been observed to use an area within 10 km of their
camp, while agriculturalists use about half this distance; these distances relate
to approximate 2-hour and 1-hour walking times. Early use of site catchments
simply computed the relative productivity of the different ecozones repre
sented within a catchment in order to explain archaeological site location
(Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970) and later energy extraction (Foley 1977). One of
the first and longest-lasting criticisms of site catchment analysis in archaeol
ogy (Bailey and Davidson 1983; Higgs et al. 1967) is that the concentric rings
drawn around sites do little to represent, or account for, the natural land
scape. It has been casually argued for some time that GIS should be able to
solve this through the incorporation of cost or friction surfaces (time/effort
principle) produced from actual landscape data (Foley 1977; Gaffney and
Stanac 1991a, 1991b).
Cost surfaces, in conjunction with site catchment analysis, allow distance to
be weighted by slope, vegetation, and other natural features that may act as
obstacles or facilitators in travel. Based on von Thunen's (1875) model of agri
cultural production, the concept of a cost surface was included in archaeologi-
10 I H. D. G. Maschner
cal research early on (Clarke 1968,1977; Jarman 1972; Jarman et al. 1972; Vita-
Finzi and Higgs 1970). Perhaps one of the best attempts at cost-surface analy
sis is Limp's construction of catchments for a Mississippian site in Arkansas
(1991). As Limp demonstrated, catchment areas produced in a GIS do not
need to be shaped concentrically. Rather, an amorphous shape dictated by
rivers, slope, and landform derived through the use of a GIS can better
account for how people actually use a landscape (see also Hunt 1992).
Thiessen polygons are one option for defining boundaries in site catchment
analysis. Thiessen polygons are constructed by drawing a line perpendicular
and equidistant between two points or centers (such as an archaeological site).
The goal of Thiessen polygon construction is an investigation of regional
interaction and of economic and political hierarchy between towns and
centers. Thiessen polygons have been used in archaeology for some time (e.g.,
Hammond 1972; Hodder 1972; Renfrew 1973), although there have been a
number of problems in their use. One problemhas been the lackof control for
natural features on the landscape. Also lacking in the analyses are measures of
agricultural productivity, population size, political power, and time. The rea
son is that most software used to construct a Thiessen polygon assumes that
all points are contemporaneous and are of equal weight.
A. Ruggles and Church address the functionality and inherent problems of
both site catchment analysis and Thiessen polygon use in archaeology in
Chapter 7. They discuss technical issues involved in using these methods and
offer a number of methods for alleviating some of the problems of space, time,
and differential population or productivity. Their study is primarily method
ological in content and contribution. Using cost surfaces and other weighted
measures, it offers an advanced, technical approach to boundary construction
and site catchment analysis.
The four chapters represent a rapidly developing realm of GIS use in
archaeology. Each approaches a different archaeological problem and uses
different theoretical perspectives. Yet each is fully aware of important issues
such as data quality and accuracy, as well as the underlying assumptions
about human behavior inherent in its analysis.

Site Location and Environmental Modeling

The one area where archaeologists have generally used GIS, and
one of the most important issues and uses for GIS in current archaeological
research, is in predictive modeling of site locations and in the environmental
modeling of landscapes (Altschul 1990; Carmichael 1990; Futato 1991; Green
1990; Hasenstab 1990; Hasenstab and Resnick 1990; Kvamme 1989; Kvamme
and Jochim 1989; Marozas and Zack 1990; Maschner and Stein 1995; Savage
1990b; Warren 1990a, 1990b). The next five chapters address many of the
important issues in site location modeling through discussions of methodol
ogy and archaeological application.
A predictive model is simply a statistical representation of the environ
mental characteristics of archaeological site location selected by the prehistoric
inhabitants for the placement of their villages, camps, or other sites. The goal
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 11
of most of these models is to determine the probability of finding archaeolog
ical sites in areas that have not been investigated. Predictive modeling consti
tuted the first substantive use of GIS in archaeology, and that has perhaps
been its greatest problem in gaining wider acceptance in the field. Many
archaeologists associate GIS with either mapmaking or predictive modeling
and see predictive modeling as simply the means by which government agen
cies may write off whole regions as archaeologically unimportant. Those same
archaeologists see GIS as the evil tool behind probabilistic statements without
questioning the relationship between the tool and the interpretation assigned
to the results. That view is shortsighted and unfortunate.
Most archaeologists who use GIS for modeling purposes are fully aware of
the implications and fallacies of their models. In Chapter 8, van Leusen points
out a number of reasons why locational modeling has been both a benefit and
a burden to archaeology, while reviewing the role of GIS in Dutch archaeol
ogy. He makes an excellent point in that the kinds of questions asked by a
resource manager versus a more theoretical archaeologist may be quite differ
ent and could lead to dissension. On the other hand, he also points out that
the way in which questions are asked is important.
For example, in a number of studies (Maschner 1992, 1996; Maschner and
Stein 1995), it was found that the traditional modeling question, What were
the environmental variables that influenced site location? caused great dis
tress among an audience of postprocessual archaeologists. When the question
was changed to, What were the environmental parameters that the prehistoric
decision makers chose for site location? it received general acceptance from
the same group, even though the same data and the same results were report
ed. As van Leusen states in his chapter, the entire concept of environmental
determinism is considered inappropriate in archaeology, especially in Europe.
Yet there is not a single educated archaeologist who would claim that no
human decision-making process is involved.
Modeling need not simply be locational, as a number of recent analyses
have demonstrated. These include Allen's study of early historic trade (1990),
a study of geologic formations for the Olorgasallie area of Africa (Jorstad et al.
1996), Van West and Kohler's study of environmental change and agricultural
production in the southwestern United States (1996), Maschner's study of
political decision making on the Northwest Coast of North America (1992,
1996), Gaffney and Stance's study of the Island of Hvar (1991b), and Zubrow's
study of demography in New York (1990). None of the chapters in this section
are models for the sole purpose of prediction.
In Chapter 9, Allen seeks to use environmental data to investigate why Iro-
quoian territories are distributed the way they are. In this simple and elegant
approach to GIS, a number of overlays and tests are done to show that vari
ability in the productivity of maize agriculture, especially the length of the
growing season, is critical in the distribution of Iroquoian political groups.
These variables change in importance through time in conjunction with global
climatic change. This contribution is straightforward and presents methods
and results that will appeal to readers who are new to the use of GIS in
archaeology, while providing conclusions that have a good archaeological
12 | H. D. G. Maschner
foundation.
Hasenstab seeks to understand Iroquoian settlement in the context of politi
cal change and warfare in Chapter 10. While using many of the basic envi
ronmental variables usually applied to settlement studies, he points out that
political conditions are often more important than the purely environmental
constraints usually analyzed in a GIS. His approach complements Allen's
study by investigating issues of prehistoric settlement in New York State at a
different level of resolution and from a different perspective. This chapter is
an excellent example of a growing trend toward the use of environmental
models as screens onto which political variability is projected.
Johnson (Chapter 11) uses remotely sensed images for modeling purposes.
Aerial remote sensing has played a prominent role in archaeology for some
time (e.g., Behrens and Sever 1991; Donoghue 1989; Donoghue and Shennan
1988; Ebert 1984; Scollar et al. 1990), but because of its subdisciplinary separa
tion from GIS in many geography departments, it is often seen as separate in
archaeology as well. This need not be the case. In fact, for most archaeological
applications, aerial photographs, satellite images, or even more localized tech
niques such as ground penetrating radar can be viewed simply as another
data layer in a GIS. Although many of the processing techniques are quite
different from those specific to GIS (see Lillesand and Kiefer 1994), the result
ing coverages are critical to many archaeological applications. In his study of
prehistoric settlement in Mississippi, Johnson finds that the resolution of
Landsat data is not sufficient for some archaeological analyses by itself. But it
is valuable as a tool for environmentally evaluating and mapping large re
gions for preliminary archaeological analyses.
In the last chapter in this section (Chapter 12), Dalla Bona and Larcombe
present a model of site location in subarctic Ontario based on ethnographic
parameters. Dividing their study area into a seasonal subsistence and settle
ment cycle, they construct a model of site location that is compared to the
available data on the regional prehistory. They use their results to devise a
strategy for future research. Their study is unique in its use of behaviorally
based variables in the construction of the model and in their use of GIS to
project that model onto the past.

New Directions for GIS in Archaeology

In many of the chapters in this volume, but especially those by

Kvamme and by Ebert, Camilli, and Berman, the importance of GIS as a
database tool for managing archaeological data is emphasized. This is seen in
both the storage of raw data and in the organization and presentation of the
data. This has been an important facet of GIS in archaeology for some time
(Altschul 1990; Blasco-Bosqued et al. 1996; Harris 1985, 1986; Harris and
Dudley 1984; Harris and Lock 1991; Jackson 1990; Stine and Lanter 1990).
Since archaeological data, both by site and by region, are spatially referenced,
a GIS allows for the storage, cataloging, and management of huge amounts of
information that can be easily retrieved, analyzed, cross-referenced, and corre
lated. The ability to associate a site description and map location, or to find all
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 13
of the sites within 100 m of a roadway through a simple buffering routine, has
revolutionized the management abilities of some preservation agencies.
This aspect of GIS in archaeology is emphasized in Chapter 13, where
Farley and Gisiger present a model for the next generation of database devel
opment in archaeology. Their study stresses two major points. The first is the
need for a nationwide database and analysis system both for the management
of archaeological resources and for macroregional analyses. The second is the
means by which this kind of database would become useful and could be
implemented. One of the primary research efforts at the Center for Advanced
Spatial Technologies (CAST) at the University of Arkansas has been the
development of database and GIS methods for making massive quantities of
archaeological data available to the broader archaeological community. Called
metadata databases, they integrate spatial data, text data, remotely sensed
images, artifacts, and any other categories of information the archaeologist
might find useful. Farley and Gisiger discuss the techniques for putting it on
line and the role that this kind of organization will play in the future of
archaeology. The authors demonstrate the usefulness of the approach with a
simple example. In previous research, archaeologists such as Binford (1983)
and Keeley (1988) have used latitudinal variability in primary productivity to
explain variation in subsistence, settlement, and political organization in
Native North America. The general assumption in those studies has been that
there is a relationship between increasingly higher latitudes and decreasing
primary productivity. Using Advanced Very High Resolution Radar
(AVHRR) data, which is basically a measure of mean monthly vegetation
lushness, Farley and Gisiger demonstrate that the relationship between lati
tude and productivity is complex and that there is also a considerable amount
of longitudinal variation in primary productivity. This variability will have an
impact on how we interpret the past and is only visible when one looks at
macroregional variation.
This volume concludes with a discussion of important issues for the future
of GIS in archaeology. They are the role of time in GIS development, true 3-D
GIS construction, a move toward more behaviorally relevant data, and the
ability of GIS to understand prehistoric cognition. GIS in archaeology in the
context of modern archaeological theory will be discussed, and some of the
problems that archaeologists face when beginning to use geographic informa
tion systems in their own research will be addressed.

Summary

Overall, this volume presents a methodological diversity not often

seen in the geographic information systems literature. These chapters repre
sent important areas of archaeological inquiry while evaluating many new
methods of analysis. Although not inclusive of the wide range of possible GIS
applications, this volume presents methods and applications applicable to
many areas of its readers' own research. Spatial analysis in archaeology is
14 | H. D. G. Maschner
entering a new and dynamic phase of methodological development and imag
inative application, and this volume represents an effort to bring these
advances to the broader archaeological community.

References

Aldenderfer, M. S., and H. D. G. Maschner (editors)

1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, in press.
Allen, K. M. S.
1990 Modelling Early Historic Trade in the Eastern Great Lakes Using GIS. In
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 319-329. Taylor and Francis, London.
Allen, K. M. S., S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow (editors)
1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London.
Altschul, J.
1990 Red Flag Models: The Issue of Modelling in Management Contexts. In
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 226-238. Taylor and Francis, London.
Anselin, L.
1992 Spatial Data Analysis with GIS: An Introduction to Application in the Social
Sciences. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University
of California, Santa Barbara.
Aronoff, S.
1989 Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective. WDL Publi
cations, Ottawa.
Attwell, M. R., and M. Fletcher
1987 An Analytical Technique for Investigating Spatial Relationships. Journal of
Archaeological Science 14:1-11.
Bailey, G. N., and I. Davidson
1983 Site Exploitation Territories and Topography: Two Case Studies from
Palaeolithic Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:87-115.
Behrens, C. A., and T. L. Sever (editors)
1991 Applications of Space Age Technology in Anthropology. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Science and Technology Laboratory, John C. Stennis
Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
Bertin, J.
1983 Semiology of Graphics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Binford, L. R.
1983 In Pursuit ofthePast. Thames and Hudson, London.
Blasco-Bosqued, C, J. Espiago, and J. B. Preysler
1996 The Role of GIS in the Management of Archaeological Data: An Example of
an Application to the Spanish Administration. In Anthropology, Space, and
Geographic Information Systems, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer and H. D. G.
Maschner. Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press.
Burrough, P. A.
1986 Principles of Geographical Information Systemsfor Land Resources Assessment.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 15
Carmichael, D.
1990 GIS Predictive Modelling of Prehistoric Site Distributions in Central
Montana. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S.
W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 216-225. Taylor and Francis, London.
Clarke, D. L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.
Clarke, D. L. (editor)
1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, London.
Cleland, W. S.
1985 The Elements of Graphing Data. Wadsworth Advanced Books, Monterey,
California.
Cliff, A. D., and J. K. Ord
1973 SpatialAutocorrelation. Pion, London.
Cowen, D. J.
1988 GIS Versus CAD Versus DBMS: What Are the Differences? Photogrammetric
Engineering andRemote Sensing54(11):15511555.
Cresse, N. A. C.
1993 Statisticsfor Spatial Data. J. Wiley, New York.
Crumley, C. L., and W. H. Marquardt (editors)
1987 Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective. Academic
Press, New York.
Donoghue, D.
1989 Remote Sensing and Wetland Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Rural
Wetlands in England, edited by J. M. Coles and B. J. Coles, pp. 42-45. WARP
Occasional Paper No. 2. Department of History and Archaeology, University of
Exeter, Exeter.
Donoghue, D., and I. Shennan
1988 The Application of Multispectral Remote Sensing Techniques to Wetland
Archaeology. In The Exploitation of Wetlands, edited by P. Murphy and C. French,
pp. 47-59. BAR British Series 186. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
do Toit, S. H. C, A. G. Steyn, and R. H. Stumpf
1986 Graphical Exploratory Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ebert, J. I.
1984 Remote Sensing Applications in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 293-362. Academic Press,
New York.
1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Ellison, A., and J. Harriss
1972 Settlement and Landuse in the Prehistory and Early History of Southern
England: A Study Based on Locational Models. In Models in Archaeology, edited
by D. L. Clarke, pp. 911-962. Methuen, London.
Farley, J., W. F. Limp, and J. Lockhart
1990 The Archaeologist's Workbench: Integrating GIS, Remote Sensing, EDA
and Database Management. In Interpreting Space: GISand Archaeology, edited by
K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 141-164. Taylor and
Francis, London.
Fisher, P. F. F.
1992 First Experiments in Viewshed Uncertainty: Simulating Fuzzy Viewsheds.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(3):345-352.
Foley, R.
1977 Space and Energy: A Method for Analysing Habitat Value and Utilization
16 | H. D. G. Maschner
in Relation to Archaeological Sites. In Spatial Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke,
pp. 163-187. Academic Press, London.
Fotheringham, S., and P. Rogerson (editors)
1994 Spatial Analysis andGIS. Taylor and Francis, London.
Futato, E. M.
1991 GIS Modelling of Archaeological Site Location: A Low-Tech Approach. In
Applications of Space Age Technology in Anthropology, edited by C. A. Behrens and
T. L. Sever, pp.95-110. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Science
and Technology Laboratory, John C. Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis,
Mississippi.
Gaffney, V., and Z. Stancic
1991a Predicting the Past: GIS and Archaeology. Geo-Informations-Systeme 4(4):27-
32.
1991b GIS Approaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study from the Island of Hvar.
Znanstveni Institut, Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Gaffney, V., Z. Stancic, and H. Watson
1996 Moving from Catchments to Cognition: Tentative Steps Toward a Larger
Archaeological Context for GIS. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Infor
mation Systems, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, in press.
Garson, G. D., and R. S. Biggs
1992 Analytic Mapping and Geographic Databases. Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences Series No. 87. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
Goodchild, M.
1986 Spatial Autocorrelation. Geo Books, Norwich.
Goodchild, M., B. O. Parks, and L. T. Steyaet (editors)
1993 Environmental Modelling with GIS. Oxford University Press, New York.
Green, S.
1990 Approaching Archaeological Space: An Introduction to the Volume. In
Interpreting Space: GIS andArchaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 3-8. Taylor and Francis, London.
Griffith, D. A.
1987 Spatial Autocorrelation: A Primer. Association of American Geographers,
Washington, D.C.
1988 Advanced Spatial Statistics: Special Topics in the Exploration of Quantitative
Spatial Data Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Haggett, P.
1965 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. Arnold, London.
Haining, R. P.
1990 Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Hammond, N.
1972 Locational Models and the Site of Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Center. In
Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 757-800. Methuen,
London.
Harris, T. M.
1985 GIS Design for Archaeological Site Information Retrieval and Predictive
Modelling. In Professional Archaeology in Sussex: The Next Five Years. Proceedings
of a One Day Conference of the Association of Field Archaeologists, Seaford,
Sussex.
1986 Geographic Information System Design for Archaeological Site Information
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 17
Retrieval. In Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1986, pp. 148-161. University
of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Harris, T. M., and C. Dudley
1984 A Computer-based Archaeological Site Information Retrieval System for
the Brighton Area: A Preliminary Report. Sussex Archaeological Society Newsletter
42:366.
Harris, T. M., and G. Lock
1991 Integrating Spatial Information in Computerized Sites and Monuments
Records: Meeting Archaeological Requirements in the 1990s. In Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1990, edited by K. Lockyear
and S. P. Q. Rahtz, pp. 165-173. BAR International Series 565. British Archaeo
logical Reports, Oxford.
Hartwig, F.
1979 Exploratory Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Hasenstab, R.
1990 Agriculture, Warfare, and Tribalization in theIroquois Homeland of New York: A
GIS Analysis of Late Woodland Settlement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Hasenstab, R., and B. Resnick
1990 GIS in Historical Predictive Modelling: The Ft. Drum Project. In Interpreting
Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W.
Zubrow, pp. 284-306. Taylor and Francis, London.
Hearnshaw, H. M., and D. J. Unwin (editors)
1994 Visualization and Geographical Information Systems. Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Heit, M., and A. Shortreid (editors)
1991 GIS Applications in Natural Resources. GIS World, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Higgs, E. S., C. Vita-Finzi, D. R. Harris, and A. E. Fagg
1967 The Climate, Environment and Industries of Stone Age Greece, Part III.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:1-29. London.
Higuchi, T.
1988 The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscape. Translated by Charles Terry.
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. R.
1972 Locational Models and the Study of Romano-British Settlement. In Models
in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 887-909. Methuen, London.
Hodder, I. R. (editor)
1978 The Spatial Organization of Culture. Duckworth, London.
Hodder, I. R., and C. R. Orton
1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hunt, E. D.
1992 Upgrading Site-catchment Analyses with the Use of GIS: Investigating the
Settlement Patterns of Horticulturalists. World Archaeology 24:283-309.
Jackson, J.
1990 Building an Historic Settlement Database in GIS. In Interpreting Space: GIS
and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp.
274-283. Taylor and Francis, London.
Jarman, M. R.
1972 A Territorial Model for Archaeology: A Behavioral and Geographical
Approach. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 705-733.
Methuen, London.
18 | H. D. G. Maschner
Jarman, M. R., C. Vita-Finzi, and E. S. Higgs
1972 Site Catchment Analysis in Archaeology. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism,
edited by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 61-66. Duckworth,
London.
Jorstad, T., R. Potts, and D. Cole
1996 The Role of GIS in the Interdisciplinary Investigations at Olorgasallie,
Kenya: A Pleistocene Archaeological Locality. In Anthropology, Space, and
Geographic Information Systems, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer and H. D. G.
Maschner. Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press.
Judge, J. W., and L. Sebastian (editors)
1988 Quantifying thePresent and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method and Application
of Archaeological Predictive Modeling. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC
Keeley, L.
1988 Hunter-Gatherer Economic Complexity and Population Pressure: A Cross-
Cultural Analysis. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 7:373-411.
Kvamme, K. L.
1985a Fundamentals and Potential of Geographic Information System Techniques
for Archaeological Spatial Research. Paper presented at the 50th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.
1985b Geographic Information Systems Techniques for Regional Archaeological
Research. Paper presented at UISPP Commission IV Symposium on Data
Management and Mathematical Methods in Archaeology, Denver.
1986a ARGIS: An Archaeological Geographic Information System. Paper pre
sented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
New Orleans.
1986b An Overview of Geographic Information Systems for Archaeological
Researchand Data Management. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
1989 Geographic Information Systems in Regional Archaeological Research and
Data Management. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited
by M. B. Schiffer,pp. 139-204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1990a Spatial Autocorrelation and the Classic Maya Collapse Revisited: Refined
Techniques and New Conclusions. Journal ofArchaeological Science 17:197-207.
1990b GIS Algorithms and Their Effects on Regional Archaeological Analyses. In
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 112-126. Taylor and Francis, London.
1990c One Sample Tests in Regional Archaeological Analysis: New Possibilities
Through Computer Technology. American Antiquity 55:367-381.
1993 Spatial Statistics and GIS: An Integrated Approach. In Computing the Past:
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by J.
Andresen, T. Madsen, and I. Scollar, pp. 91-104. Arhus University Press, Arhus,
Denmark.
1994 GIS Vs. Spatial Statistics: How Do They Fit Together?Archaeological Com
puting Newsletter38:1-2.
Kvamme, K., and M. Jochim
1989 The Environmental Basis of Mesolithic Settlement. In The Mesolithic in
Europe: Papers Presented tothe Third International Symposium, edited by C. Bonsall,
pp. 1-12. John Donald, Edinburgh.
Kvamme, K. L., and T. A. Kohler
1988 Geographic Information Systems: Technical Aids for Data Collection,
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 19
Analysis, and Displays. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory,
Method and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by J. W. Judge
and L. Sebastian, pp. 493-547. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
Lillesand, T. M., and R. W. Kiefer
1994 Remote SensingandImage Interpretation. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Limp, W. F.
1991 Continuous Cost Movement Models. In Applications of Space Age Technology
in Anthropology, edited by C. A. Behrens and T. L. Sever, pp. 237-250. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Science and Technology Laboratory,
John C. Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
Limp, W. F., and J. A. Farley
1986 Utilizing Computerized Mapping and Geographic Information Systems for
Exploratory Data Analysis of Geobased Archaeological Data. Paper presented at
the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New
Orleans.
Lindenberg, R. F., and P. F. Fisher
1988 Towards Recognition of the Functional Distinctions Among Remote
Sensing, Geographic Information Systems and Cartography. American Societyfor
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Technical Papers:\5\-\59. Falls Church,
Virginia.
Lock, G. R., and T. M. Harris
1996 Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort in a Digital Landscape.
In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, edited by M. S.
Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner. Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press.
Madry, S., and C. Crumley
1990 An Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in a Regional Archaeological
Settlement Pattern Analysis: The Arroux River Valley, Burgundy, France. In
Interpreting Space: GISand Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 364-380. Taylor and Francis, London.
Marble, D.
1990 The Potential Methodological Impact of GIS on the Social Sciences. In
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 9-21. Taylor and Francis, London.
Marozas, B., and J. Zack
1990 GIS and Archaeological Site Location. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp.
165-172. Taylor and Francis, London.
Maschner, H. D. G.
1992 The Origins of Hunter and Gatherer Sedentism andPolitical Complexity: A Case
Study from the Northern Northwest Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Santa Barbara. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1994 Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing, and Field Survey for
Paleoecological, Geological, and Archaeological Reconnaissance on the Lower
Alaska Peninsula. Proposal submitted to the NSF Division of Polar Programs
Social Sciences.
1996 The Politics of Settlement Choice on the Northwest Coast: Cognition, GIS,
and Coastal Landscapes. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information
Systems, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, in press.
20 | H. D. G. Maschner
Maschner, H. D. G, J. Jordan, and C. L. Funk.
1994 Mussels, Sand Dunes, and the Paleoecology of the Lower Alaska Peninsula
and Eastern Aleutian Islands. Paper presented at the 2nd University of
Wisconsin Arctic Archaeology Conference, Madison.
Maschner, H. D. G, and J. Stein
1995 Multivariate Approaches to Site Location on the Northwest Coast.
Antiquity 69:61-73.
Parr, D.
1993 Introduction to Geographic Information Systems. URISA, Washington, D.C.
Peuquet, D. J., and D. F. Marble (editors)
1990 Introductory Readings in Geographic Information Systems. Taylor and Francis,
London.
Post, F. H and A. J. S. Hin (editors)
1992 Advances in Scientific Visualization. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Renfrew, C.
1973 Monuments Mobilization and Social Organization in Neolithic Wessex. In
The Explanation ofCulture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp.
539-558. Duckworth, London.
Rhind, D. W.
1981 Geographical Information Systems in Britain. In Quantitative Geography: A
British View, edited by N. Wrigley and R. J. Bennett, pp. 17-35 Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London.
Ripple, W. J. (editor)
1989 Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems: A Compendium. American
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and the American Congress
on Surveying and Mapping. Bethesda,Maryland.
Savage, S.
1990a GIS in Archaeological Research. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology,
edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 22-32. Taylor
and Francis, London.
1990b Modelling the Late Archaic Landscape. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp.
330-355. Taylor and Francis, London.
Scollar, I., A.Tabbagh,A. Hesse, and I. Herzog
1990 Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sibley, D.
1987 Spatial Applications ofExploratory Data Analysis. Geo Books, Norwich.
Stine, R., and D. Lanter
1990 Considerations for Archaeology Database Design. In Interpreting Space: GIS
and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp.
80-89. Taylor and Francis, London.
Tomlin, C. D.
1990 Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modeling. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Tomlinson, R. F.
1972 Geographical Data Handling. International Geographical Union Commission
on Geographical Data Sensing and Processing,Ottawa.
1987 Current and Potential Uses of Geographical Information Systems: The
North American Experience. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems 1:203-218.
 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology | 21
Tufte, E. R.
1983 The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire,
Connecticut.
Tukey, J. W.
1977 Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
1980 We Need Both Exploratory and Confirmatory. American Statistician 34:23-
25.
Van West, C. R., and T. A. Kohler
1996 A Time to Rend, a Time to Sew: New Perspectives on Northern Anasazi
Social Development in Later Prehistory. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic
Information Systems, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, in press.
Velleman, P. F., and D. C. Hoaglin
1981 Applications, Basics, and Computing of Exploratory Data Analysis. Duxbury
Press, Boston.
Vita-Finzi, C, and E. S. Higgs
1970 Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catch
ment Analysis. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 36:1-37.
von Thiinen, J. H.
1875 Der Isolierte Staat in Bezeihung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie.
3rd edition. Wiegant, Hempal and Parey, Berlin.
Wansleeben, M.
1988 Applications of Geographical Information Systems in Archaeological
Research. In Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeological Research, edited
by S. P. Q. Rahtz, pp. 435-451. BAR International Series 446, Vol. 2. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Warren, R.
1990a Predictive Modelling in Archaeology. In Interpreting Space: GIS and
Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 90-
111. Taylor and Francis, London.
1990b Predictive Modelling of Archaeological Site Location: A Case Study in the
Midwest. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S.
W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 201-215. Taylor and Francis, London.
Wheatley, D.
1993 Going Over Old Ground: GIS Archaeological Theory and the Act of
Perception. In Computing thePast: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods
in Archaeology, edited by J. Andresen, T. Madsen, and I. Scollar, pp. 133-138.
ArhusUniversity Press, Arhus, Denmark.
Wilkinson, L.
1990 SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. SYSTAT, Evanston, Illinois.
Williams, I., W. F. Limp, and F. Bruier
1990 Using GIS and EDA for Archaeological Site Classification and Analysis. In
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and
E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 239-273. Taylor and Francis, London.
Zubrow, E.
1990 Modelling and Prediction with GIS: A Demographic Example from
Prehistoric and Historic New York. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology,
edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 307-318. Taylor
and Francis, London.

View publication stats