I view the archaeological record from a geographical perspective. Archaeologists tend to use GIS as a tool for visualizing information, but the real power of GIS is the ease with which it allows us to analyze spatial information and create new data. Much of my interest in mapping and geography involves looking at broad landscape patterns and how humans-landscape interactions. Essentially, this is the perspective of landscape ecology. Most of my experience to date has been devoted to generating the geo-information necessary to begin posing questions relevant to this perspective. The following two examples demonstrate some of this work.
terrain mapping: copper age in the morava valley
Terrain map of the upper Morava Valley, Moravia, Czech Republic. Map shows Copper Age archaeological sites that contain an identified Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB) component, arrows indicate locations of hilltop wall-and-ditch enclosures. Each site is classed as either an Enclosure (exhibiting monumental earthen walls and/or ditches), Mound Group (any site containing evidence of 2 or more earthen or stone mounds that contain inhumations), Settlement (any site containing some evidence of habitation or other use that does not exhibit any evidence of monumental architecture), or a Grave (any site containing evidence of at least on interment but no evidence of monumental architecture or earthen mound). This map was produced by digitizing several 1:25k topographic maps. After digitization, the maps were mosaiced together and a kriging algorithm was used to generate a continuous surface. The Z axis is exaggerated to enhance topography. Site locations were collected from an on-the-ground survey as well as an extensive literature search.
This is a partial terrain map of the Rmiz hillfort located in Moravia, Czech Republic. The map shows roughly ¼ of what is designated "Area 3," the open area between the third and fourth earthen walls. Portions of 3 of the 4 earthen walls and ditches are visible on the map. The highest point shown corresponds to the highest point along Wall 4. Unmapped areas are outlined in black. The map was produced from data collected on the ground using a total station transit to collect X,Y, and Z points at roughly 3-meter intervals along (generally) linear transects across the 40-acre site. The transit data were entered into Golden Software's Surfer program, and a kriging algorithm was applied to produce a smooth surface. Note that the Z scale is somewhat exaggerated to emphasize the walls and ditches of the site. This data was collected under my supervision during the 2000 joint project of the Czech-American Research Project (CARPro) and the Czech-American Archaeological Field School.
regional site mapping: missouri bootheel
I've been working at digitizing some of the records of the Lower Mississippi Valley Survey (LMVS), with a particular focus on the sites located in the Missouri "Boot Heel".
The original LMVS 15-minute topographic quadrangle maps were geo-rectified to a "best fit" alignment with 7.5-minute quadrangle boundaries from the USGS, town and county boundaries, and other geographic features. Once a best fit had been established, a geodatabase was created to store site locations, numbers, and other information. Individual sites (originally noted in pencil on the paper maps) were then traced and plotted within this geodatabase. The resulting file is a 1:48k geodatabase containing records for all of the bootheel sites (as well as some sites in neighboring areas in Illinois and Arkansas) identified during the LMVS.The next step in this project is cross-referencing the LMVS sites with those listed in the Archaeological Survey of Missouri (ASM). Many of the LMVS sites were not registered with the ASM, and most of those that were registered do not have geographic coordinates (though many do have Township-Range locations). Once the sites have been cross referenced, I will be using geospatial imagery such as color NAIP orthophotography and LandSat 7 multiband imagery to refine specific locations of the sites with a particular focus on earthworks. The final step, though this seems quite distant at this point, is to use the GIS data to go back out into the fields and document current conditions of the sites, and use a Trimble Pathfinder GPS (sub-meter accuracy) to accurately map the sites.
