|
GIS Guide to Good Practice |
|
2.4 Landscapes, present and past
The archaeological awakening to GIS and the resulting rapid increase
in applications started with the publication of Interpreting Space
(Allen et al.) in 1990.
Since then, in very general terms, there
have been two streams of development which can be categorised
as Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and landscape analysis.
While any definition of GIS will undoubtedly emphasise analytical
capabilities (Martin 1996
for an introduction), it must be recognised
that a major strength of the software lies in its ability to integrate
and manage large and diverse data-sets. The integration and georeferencing
of different types of spatial data over large geographical areas,
typically a region or even a whole country, together with textual
databases is a central concern of CRM. This is usually based on
statutory obligations and frequently involves the integration
of data sources at a range of varying scales. As a result of the
flexibility and strength of these data management capabilities
it is not surprising that in the majority of cases, though by no
means exclusively, analysis is relegated to a secondary role. The potential of GIS in CRM was recognised by many countries at
a conference in 1991 (Larsen 1992),
and has since been realised by some of them, for example France
(Guillot and Leroy 1995),
The Netherlands (Roorda and Wiemer 1992)
and Scotland (Murray 1995). The adoption of GIS by national and regional CRM organisations
is a complex business, often embroiled within a range of concerns
including information strategies (not least upgrading from an
existing system), communications and standards, politics and funding.
There has been a great deal of published discussion about these
wider issues including European Union initiatives (van Leusen
1995), various data models (Arroyo-Bishop
and Lantada Zarzosa
1995; Lang and Stead 1992) and the issues
involved in the restructuring
of an existing database (Robinson 1993).
While CRM systems are usually based upon a vector data model,
they often need to incorporate a number of raster data layers
into the database, for example the integration of aerial photographs
into the Scottish National Monuments Record (
Murray and Dixon 1995). Other common raster data-layers that could be encountered
include the results of geophysical survey (a good example of this,
although not strictly CRM, is the Wroxeter Hinterland Project
(Gaffney, van Leusen and White 1996))
and satellite imagery (Cox 1992; Gaffney, Ostir, Podobnikar and Stancic
1996). Within the field of non-CRM landscape applications there are a
considerable number that utilise the mapping capabilities of GIS
rather than any of its analytical functionality. Even so, analysis
can be central to GIS-based landscape studies, as demonstrated
by the early case-study of the island of Hvar (Gaffney and Stancic
1991; 1992) and the
seminal paper by van Leusen (1993), where
the archaeological analyses engage a battery of techniques including
various statistics and distance functions. Such applications served
to generate a vigorous debate on the underlying epistemology of
GIS and the symbiotic relationship between GIS and archaeological
theory. This is a debate that raged in geography several years
ago (Taylor and Johnston 1995, for an overview) and surfaced in archaeology as an argument against a return to positivism and
environmental determinism (Wheatley 1993), both parts of an outdated theoretical stance long since rejected by the majority of archaeologists
(Gaffney and van Leusen 1995).
Reactions to this debate have focused on attempts to integrate
current theoretical notions of landscape within GIS functionality
involving various ways of effectively humanising the landscape.
Initially these approaches attempted to comment on the perception
and cognition of an individual situated in the landscape based
on visibility and intervisibility studies involving line-of-sight
and viewshed routines (for example, Gaffney
et al. 1995; Lock
and Harris 1996). This resulted in the development of a new technique
specifically of interest to archaeology, cumulative viewshed analysis
(Wheatley 1995). |
The right of Mark Gillings, Peter Halls, Gary Lock, Paul Miller, Greg Phillips, Nick Ryan, David Wheatley, and Alicia Wise to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All material supplied via the Arts and Humanities Data Service is protected by copyright, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of it is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your personal research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. Permission for any other use must be obtained from the Arts and Humanities Data Service(info@ahds.ac.uk). Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise, to any third party.
|