Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s10816-012-9139-2
Marcos Llobera
This paper provides a brief commentary on the some of the challenges we face when
trying to reconcile experiential/interpretive landscape archaeology approaches with
the use of digital methods, particularly those based on the use of geographic infor-
mation systems (GIS). In doing so, I review the nature of some of the main criticisms
that have been leveled against the use of GIS and attempt to provide some useful
reflections on the difficulties of developing more formal methods within this frame-
work. It is important to recognize that the discussion offered here refers to a relative
narrow range of landscape archaeology studies, and GIS applications within. For the
M. Llobera (*)
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3100, USA
e-mail: mllobera@uw.edu
496 Llobera
most part, these studies have focused on particular types of archaeological land-
scapes, mainly prehistoric and monumental, characterized by moderately to high-
relief topographies. The themes these studies have engaged in have been equally
narrow, predominantly concerned with the ritual and symbolic nature of the land-
scape. It is within the scope of these studies where the development and application of
many GIS tools can be found. Extending the experiential/interpretive framework and
the application of GIS within to a wider range of landscapes remains an ongoing
challenge. It is clear that philosophies such as phenomenology have wider and far
more reaching implications than those currently found under self-labeled phenome-
nological approaches to landscape. Equally, the usefulness of GIS within other
theoretical paradigms and scales is not questioned either. Indeed, GIS are undoubt-
edly well-suited to analyze and represent properties concerning settlement patterns
and other large scale processes. What perhaps is less clear is the role that GIS and
similar tools can play within approaches that seek to explore the agential capacity of
landscapes and people. The discussion offered here stems from the use of GIS within
these approaches but may be easily extended to other studies that attempt to bridge
between quantitative and/or representational approaches and interpretive ones.
Some Background
In 1996, I published “the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology”.
One of its prime objectives was to break free from what at the time was the main
discussion surrounding the use of GIS in landscape studies, i.e., whether GIS were
condemned to generate environmentally deterministic interpretations. This discussion
framed the potential of GIS in a rather limited way, and hinged on a series of more or
less implicit premises. First of all, GIS were exclusively referred to as tools for
locational modeling. While discussions made broad statements about the applicability
of GIS to archaeological investigations in general, the essence of the controversy was
much more narrowly focused on the merits of site prediction. Secondly, the terms
“environment” and “determinism” were wrongly fused together. Some archaeologists
considered that the use of environmental information (e.g., topography) automatically
rendered the results of a study/model as “deterministic”. By that logic, the visibility of
monuments was to be understood purely as a response to the topography and
vegetation of a landscape rather than to human choice. As a result, in order to
overcome allegations of environmental determinism, some archaeologists proposed
either the possibility of incorporating additional “cultural/cognitive” layers or
claimed that GIS could be used to derive these (e.g., Gaffney et al. 1996). There
are important shortcomings with both proposals.
The idea that we might be able to neatly separate “cultural” or “cognitive”
information from environmental by adding a “cultural” variable is reminiscent of
long-criticized functionalist ideals that at the very least stand at odds with the
interpretive perspective these studies are trying to resolve. In addition, the possibility
of representing and/or deriving cognitive information presupposes a certain (older)
version of cognition wherein individuals operate in the world primarily by manipu-
lating mental representations of it (Renfrew 1994, pp. 3–12; D'Andrade 1984, pp. 88–
89). This view stands in contrast to other versions of cognition that emphasize the
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 497
active participation of the human body, and the material presence of the world, in
problem solving and knowledge building tasks (Clark 1997, 2008). Moreover, this
latter version of cognition closely aligns with studies based on practice theory and
phenomenology as they refer to practical/embodied knowledge (Bourdieu 1977;
Giddens 1984). While neither the incorporation of “cultural” variables nor the
derivation of cognitive layers has gained much traction over the years, they still
remain a viable pursuit for several authors (e.g., Lock and Harris 2006, pp.46–7;
Verhagen and Whitley 2011; Lock 2010, pp. 91). It is worth noting that these initial
criticisms, and their proposed solutions, still maintain a rather restricted view of GIS
as tools for locational analysis.
Rather than restricting GIS to a sole purpose, my 1996 paper proposed a more
generic use of GIS, i.e., as a heuristic within an interpretive framework. This called
for GIS to be used as a means to explore, support, and extend claims defined within
this type of framework. This proposal was built on an understanding of GIS as
providing an analytical and/or modeling framework rather than as a concrete piece
of software. Through GIS, archaeologists would engage with existing, and alterna-
tive, forms of spatial representations, and explore their potential for analysis. The
application of GIS, and modeling in general, was meant to complement and extend
interpretive approaches rather than to stand opposed to them. This understanding still
underlies most of the arguments presented here. It requires, somewhat naïvely
according to some authors (e.g., Gillings 2009), a strong commitment to exploration
and ongoing development, particularly when it comes to developing new forms of
representation and analysis, rather than the passive acceptance of the status quo
surrounding these tools and their application. Through the years attempts to meet
this call have been few (e.g., Chapman 2003, 2005; Chapman and Geary 2000)
despite technical advances (i.e., easier customization) which would, in principle,
facilitate this endeavor. Reviewing the causes for such a limited growth may suggest
some reasons why the development of a middle ground remains elusive.
Current Criticisms
As a preamble to later discussions, I would like to consider some of the recent and
more significant criticisms leveled against the use of GIS by proponents of the
phenomenological approach. In doing so, I shall make reference to the work of some
authors who have already addressed, to various degrees and depths, some of these
criticisms (Brück 2005; Wickstead 2007, 2009; Gillings 2009). My intention is to go
beyond acknowledging the existence of these criticisms and to examine some of the
merits, or lack of, behind them in order to provide more context for later discussion.
The nature and depth of these criticisms vary considerably, from extreme unbridge-
able positions that deny the possibility of analysis altogether, passing by those that
question the lack of correspondence between the results obtained through GIS and
ground experience (e.g., Cummings 2008), to others that on close examination are not
as contrary as they first appear.
I start by leveling the playing field a bit. For quite some years now, the application
of GIS has been considered from the vantage point of existing phenomenological
narratives either as a way to dismiss it or embrace it. Measured against the wider
498 Llobera
theoretical aims informing these studies, GIS applications have, not surprisingly,
fallen well below the mark. From a methodological point of view, this inferiority is
rather a matter of opinion especially when compared against “methods” (if any) put
forward within mainstream narratives. While recently there has been some progress
towards the provision of concrete guidelines to conduct studies within a phenome-
nological framework (e.g., Tilley 2008a, b, 2010; particularly notable is Hamilton et
al. 2006), there are still many outstanding challenges that are not addressed by these
studies and that constitute the focus of some GIS applications (e.g., Gillings 2009;
Llobera 2007).
By far, the most adamant critic of the use of tools such as GIS and virtual reality
modeling (VRM) has been Julian Thomas, particularly in his book “Archeology and
Modernity” (2004)—see also Thomas (2008). In this work, Thomas associates both
of these technologies with the reproduction of modernist thinking about the world,
and their role in reproducing a Cartesian dualism that prevents us from understanding
more experiential aspects of the world. Insofar as Thomas considers that any analyt-
ical method or tool, any epistemology including archaeology, incorporates this
duality, there is no room for debate. While some of his criticisms against GIS and
VRM refer to their specific nature, we can see that in reality, these apply to all forms
of representation when used for analytical purposes, and ultimately, to the process of
analysis itself. For Thomas the source of criticism is the mismatch between our
knowledge of the world as experienced (which makes little use of representations)
and our knowledge about the world (as it might be apprehended through some form
of representation). For archaeologists interested in what a phenomenological under-
standing of the world can provide, it is hard to disagree with Thomas' overall insights.
Yet after reading these, one cannot help but question whether (a) the understanding of
the past he professes is truly possible (see Brück 2005, pp. 54–65)? And if so, (b) how
might this be attained? What valid methods, if any, are at our disposal for that task?
Unfortunately, Thomas never attempts to answer these questions beyond some
general remarks.
In a recent rebuttal to comments about his views, Thomas appears to have softened
slightly his criticism against the use of digital technologies (and GIS?) by acknowl-
edging their inevitability, and the possibility of being put to better use in archaeology.
He reaffirms that so far, the application of GIS has promoted a particular modernist
view of the world (Thomas 2006, pp. 63) which is probably true. Yet it is hard to
ascertain from his comments how the application might become more acceptable for,
again, he does not provide us with any clues. As Wickstead (2007; 2009, pp.11) has
lucidly pointed out, there is no single normalized approach when applying this, or any
technology, and thinking otherwise enunciates a kind of technological determinism
that I suspect Thomas would not subscribe to if we were to apply it when interpreting
past societies. Instead, GIS, as any other technology, can be reworked, hybridized, put
into new uses, and even play a “subversive” role other than the one for which it may
have been originally formulated (Pickles 1995; Graig and Elwood 1998; Duncan
2006; Sui 2008). While Thomas's comments have been instrumental in highlighting
the modernist legacy of archaeology, he provides us with little guidance on how we
may avoid a modernist result when conducting any analysis. Can our analyses help us
better understand how certain experiences of a landscape were constructed, and the
role these may have played in society?
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 499
Although less radical than Thomas when it comes to the possibilities of analysis,
Tilley has recently voiced his distaste for the use of GIS when exploring landscapes,
Ancient stones in Landscapes, the subject matter of this book, cannot be known
or understood simply from publications, from maps, diagrams, photographs and
descriptions, because these are only representations. As representations they
necessarily fail in conveying a bodily understanding of prehistoric remains.
Statistical analysis, Geographical Information Systems and simulations are, if
anything, far worse (Tilley 2004, pp.218).
Why would Tilley think that the use statistical analysis or GIS is far worse than
maps, photographs or diagrams? He provides no reasons though we may speculate
that it is because of the relatively complex nature of these sorts of representations
(e.g., photos montages, diaries, etc.), Tilley's familiarity with them, and the fact that
they are considered as passive records. Still, his remarks stand more as a rhetorical
statement than a well-argued objection. For Tilley, the source of knowledge
about prehistoric (?) landscapes can only be obtained through the body of the
archaeologist (Tilley 2004, pp. 1–32; Tilley 2008a, pp. 38–44; Tilley 2008b, pp.
271). It is hard though to distinguish how some of his field observations would differ
from those obtained through other means. Would Tilley object to the study of
monument inter-visibility calculated using GIS (see Figs. 4.8 and 4.9 in Tilley
2010)? If so, on what basis? Are observations based on the “bones of the land”
(Tilley 1994, pp. 73) as he claims with his own studies qualitatively different from
those obtained through the use of a digital terrain model? Wouldn't they be capturing
similar information? In what way is the use of GIS as a tool for thinking about, say
the topographic setting of monuments, less well-suited than the creation of written
and visual texts?
To summarize, the main criticisms raised by the authors above are for the most part
too generic or inconsistent (particularly when situated within the author's wider
bodies of work) to be constructive. However, putting these aside, it is still possible
to distil some genuine objections within these criticisms that point towards deficien-
cies when applying GIS. While Gillings has rightly pointed out (Gillings 2009, pp.
339) that the lack of convergence between “model-based” (e.g., GIS) and “experien-
tial-based” approaches is a two-sided problem, he maintains that the complicated
nature of GIS applications, and the lack of well-defined purposes when these are
applied (or developed) are largely to blame. In my opinion, this evaluation is
misplaced and does not really address the reasons that make such convergence
difficult. Chief among these are the inherent difficulties of devising methods inspired
on theoretical sources, the limited role currently associated with representations in the
production of new knowledge, and the lack of recognition that models may be used as
a valid tools within interpretive approaches.
operationalize some of the concepts and ideas found in these narratives. This was
precisely the purpose that drove the creation of the visualscape (Llobera 2003) as a
concept. Visualscapes refer to the visual structuring of space. This structuring may be
generated by the visibility patterns (i.e., visual relationships) associated with the
presence of monuments in a landscape which at times becomes socially appropriated
by people. Visualscapes constitute the source of many of the observations carried out
by archaeologists in the field. Acknowledging the existence of such a structure, the
possibility of describing it in different ways, and exploring its characteristics, allows
us to refer to something concrete, something we can include when generating a
narrative. It also opens up the possibility for new research and questions (e.g., What
was the nature of the visual impact of the features? When did it happen?). These
possibilities come with other commitments such as the requirement to assess the
adequacy of the representations as a means to explore various aspects of the
landscape.
uncertainties that surround it. Neither Thomas nor Tilley acknowledges the possibil-
ity that representations can be marshaled to investigate past contexts (see comments
on modeling below), and that in some circumstances, they may provide the only
means to do so.
Several consequences follow from limiting the role and life-span of representa-
tions. Without recourse to these it is difficult to rein in other sources of knowledge not
generated at the same space and time as our observations (Latour 1987). This is
important when trying to make sense of observations against a wider historical
context pieced together from multiple studies. Representations are necessary if
consensus, and ultimately the sanctioning of findings, is to be shared amongst a
collective (i.e., archaeologists, local community, see Cummings et al. 2002). Fur-
thermore, by downplaying their role, there is little incentive to improve and develop
new forms of representation which may lead to new analytical breakthroughs
(Llobera 2010).
However, it is fair to acknowledge that some of the criticisms raised by these
authors expose deficiencies, at least with the application of GIS, that have gone
mostly unchecked by many archaeologists. A prime example is the inadequacy of
commonly used spatial representations to explore the type of questions often formu-
lated within interpretive approaches. It is not uncommon in many of these accounts to
find ample reference to how the appearance of features and monuments changes
across the landscape. The fact that a monument is routinely represented as a single
point (or at best by a flat polygon) within GIS renders such investigation out of reach.
In many instances, our results will simply be erroneous when calculating patterns of
intervisibility because of the impossibility of visual occlusion among monuments.
These limitations remind us that GIS are currently ill-equipped to deal with space as
it surrounds an individual. With ingenuity, some of these shortcomings may be
somewhat overcome within the capabilities currently offered by GIS but clearly
point towards deeper representational issues, and in turn, analytical challenges to
which many archaeologists are often oblivious. The importance of adequately
matching our representations (scale and precision) with the questions in which we
are interested cannot be stressed enough. In this sense, Thomas is absolutely right
when he claims that the great majority of current examples using GIS reproduce a
modern map-like view of the world. Within archaeology, GIS are still predominant-
ly employed for map production, two-dimensional spatial queries and point pattern
analysis. Few readily available operations within GIS, notably viewsheds and
accumulated cost surfaces, escape from the detached bird's eye perspective of the
world.
One clear message that emerges from Thomas's and Tilley's comments is that
representations are to be viewed as a “necessary evil”. For them, these are useful as
process but not as an end product. Their own cursory (though still mediated!) use of
photographs, sketches, and other forms of representation, is meant to be a byproduct
of the process of reflection. Representations can only be valued negatively or have no
value in and of themselves. At best, they are ancillary, a form of commentary.
Interestingly, the creation and use of representations for Tilley and Thomas does
not and cannot play any “active” and useful role towards understanding within their
experiential framework. It is here where the main bone of contention against the use
of GIS, and modeling in general seems to lie. The possibility of deriving new
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 503
models is their limited scope, i.e., their aim is not to model some systemic property or
produce a final insight about society. Instead, they are constructed to explore how
particular processes or concepts may play out within the specifics of a certain context.
While no comprehensive interpretation is meant to emerge from their application,
their construction can be seen as an attempt to shorten the gap that often exists
between empirical information and narratives. They are not meant to compete with or
substitute current practices (e.g., field recording, diaries) but to complement and
reinforce them. In this regard, the use of scaffolding models and methods is not at
odds with the sentiment expressed by Tilley in the following quote:
There is no substitute for the human experience of place - of being there - and it
is only after this that the various technologies of representation come into play
(Tilley 2004, pp. 118–9)
These models are not meant to be alternatives to going out into the field and
directly collecting information. Field experiences are a rich source of insight which
may be further explored and supported by these types of models and methods. Their
role might be particularly important in cases where there are serious doubts about the
validity of conclusions arrived in the field. Within landscape archaeology, scaffolding
models and methods may be employed for a multitude of non-exclusive, non-
exhaustive purposes such as:
Creating Comparative Information. Properties and/or characteristics observed at
particular locations or associated with particular features may be compared
against those found at all other locations, at a subset of locations fulfilling a
particular criterion or at a set of random locations, as a way to assess their
relevance and significance (e.g., De Reu et al. 2011; Lake et al. 1998; Llobera
2001; Woodman 2000).
Determining a Property or Pattern Robustness. The instantiation of specific
landscape experiences is often predicated on the co-presence of features (i.e., monu-
ments, other material traces) on the landscape. Indeed the interpretation of certain
sequences, of certain spatial orderings, depends on this co-existence. Through
simulations we can assess how robust such experiences would have been given
the presence or absence of features (e.g., Fisher et al. 1997; Llobera 2007).
Incorporating Absent Data. The possibility of going out into the field and
making observations may be impossible when all that remains of the landscape
features of interest are ploughmarks or a geophysical signature. In those cases,
there is no better alternative than to simulate their impact through digital
reconstructions.
Investigating Processes. The structuring of landscapes is a temporal process, and
understanding how it unfolds through time is as important as the final patterns
we observe at the end. Recreating the emergence of certain landscape patterns
can provide us with precious insight on the range of possibilities that were
available throughout the process of pattern formation. Through modeling, we
can enrich our narratives by adding a dimension that otherwise would be out of
reach if we restrict ourselves only to field observations (Llobera 2007). Unfor-
tunately, to this day most GIS models produced by archaeologists are linear, or
prescriptive, in nature rather than exploratory. The ability to generate multiple
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 505
To Conclude
The above paragraphs have sought to provide some very personal commentaries
regarding the challenges underlying current efforts to develop digital methods within
an interpretive landscape archaeology framework. In doing so I have briefly focused
on some of the main criticisms made against existing GIS examples. I have purpose-
fully omitted reference to other modeling initiatives within archaeology (e.g., agent-
based models) simply because the main point of contact between current interpretive
approaches and model-based ones has been GIS.
As I have commented previously (Llobera 2007), developing or applying existing
methodologies (e.g., GIS) as part of an interpretive framework remains a daunting
task. It requires that we internalize many of the concepts and ideas found in larger
theoretical bodies (e.g., phenomenology) and apply them creatively. In the case of
506 Llobera
model-based methods like GIS, this needs to be paired up with knowledge about
different kinds of representations, and an understanding of their potential and limitations
when investigating certain types of questions. We need to be prepared to develop new
forms of representation when current ones are inadequate though not necessarily with the
intention of mimicking “reality” and/or other complex notions frequently found in
interpretive narratives, such as place (contra Lock 2010, p. 94), experience, and so
forth. Concepts such as these refer to complex processes that uniquely developed
across space and time rather than to any fix notion or object. Nevertheless, represen-
tations may be used to shed some light on these processes, or investigate some
aspects of them.
Most of the comments made in this paper have been theoretical or conceptual in
nature, leaving out any discussion about the practicalities of achieving this middle
ground. We can already identify divergent opinions on how to proceed with its
development. For instance, Gillings attributes part of the lack of convergence to the
fact that GIS studies are not “accessible to all and routinely applicable today, rather
than some poorly defined tomorrow (Gillings 2009, pp. 335).” He further hints at the
development of some GIS examples as being self-serving and somewhat disconnect-
ed from the theory. While I sympathize and align myself with some of these views, I
think that they may lead us down a path that so far has not proven to be very
successful in archaeology. There is great virtue in the use of simple tools/methods
but only when these match the level of our questions and not vice versa. When these
can no longer deliver, the need for new tools becomes a necessity to secure progress.
We have to recognize that in order to address certain questions we might need new
methods, as well as new concepts, that are not part of any ready-made toolset. This
may not always require the development of new tools but rather the innovative use of
existing tools in light of new theoretical needs. As I have mentioned above, many of
the processes found in interpretive narratives are not trivial and investigating them
with ready-at-hand tools, to use Heidegger's terms, downplays their complexity [for
an analogous point of view see Ingold's discussion of mapping and mapmaking
(Ingold 2000, pp. 219–242)]. While it is highly advantageous, and ultimately neces-
sary, that whatever methods we develop become widely available, we also need to
keep in mind the difference between “simple methods” and “methods made simple”.
The former are desirable provided we do not fall into the routine of adjusting our
questions to them, the latter require skill, time and effort to develop which often goes
unrewarded or dismissed as not being part of archaeology.
In my view the development of middle ground solutions that successfully marry
interpretive sensibilities with solid methodology represents a very fertile ground for
creativity and rigor in archaeology. This requires that we acknowledge the complex
nature of the themes raised within this theoretical framework. When using “model-
based” methods, we need to be aware of the implications of using any sort of
representations, their adequacy in light of certain questions, and their benefits as well
as limitations. Furthermore, we need to fill in the gaps that exist between the themes
and topics contained within interpretive approaches and the instantiation of these
within specific contexts.
The acceptance of tools such as GIS, and modeling in general, within an interpre-
tive landscape archaeology framework requires that we acknowledge the difference
between studying past landscapes, which is always done “at a distance”, and our
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 507
theories about how these become part of human existence. This difference between
how and what landscapes might have been and how these may be studied has
routinely been confused and inter-exchanged, and has provided the source of many
of criticisms leveled against the use of GIS. Ultimately, our belief in the possibility of
a middle ground depends on our conviction that in spite of our modernist (distant and
analytical) position, we can access some aspect of people's experience in the past.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Prof. Don Grayson for providing comments on an earlier draft
and making me reflect a bit harder about my own ideas and beliefs. I would also like to thank the
anonymous referees who provided useful comments on how to improve this article. Any remaining
mistakes or errors are most definitely mine.
References
Barrett, J. C. (1994). Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Barrett, J. C. (2006). Archaeology as the investigation of the contexts of humanity. In D. Papaconstatinou
(Ed.), Deconstructing context: a critical approach to archaeological practice (pp. 194–211). Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Barrett, J. C., & Ko, I. (2009). A phenomenology of landscape. A crisis in British landscape archaeology?
Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(3), 275–294.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S., Tilley, C., & Anderson, E. (2007). Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in
landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brantingham, P. J. (2006). Measuring forager mobility. Current Anthropology, 47(3), 435–450.
Brück, J. (2005). Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British
prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12(1), 45–72.
Chapman, H. P. (2003). Rudston “Cursus A”—engaging with a Neolithic monument in its landscape setting
using GIS. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 22, 345–356.
Chapman, H. P. (2005). Rethinking the “cursus problem”—investigating the Neolithic landscape archae-
ology of Rudston, East Yorkshire, UK using GIS. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 71, 159–170.
Chapman, H. P., & Gearey, B. R. (2000). Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: some
comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity, 74, 316–319.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cummings, V. (2008). Virtual reality, visual envelopes and characterizing landscape. In B. David & J.
Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 285–290). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Cummings, V., Jones, A., & Watson, A. (2002). Divided places: phenomenology and asymmetry in the
monuments of the Black Mountains, Southeast Wales. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12, 57–70.
D'Andrade, R. G., Shweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In Culture theory:
essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Reu, J., Bourgeois, J., De Smedt, P., Zwertvaegher, A., Antrop, M., Bats, M., et al. (2011). Measuring
the relative topographic position of archaeological sites in the landscape, a case study on the Bronze
Age barrows in northwest Belgium. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(12), 3435–3446.
Duncan, S. L. (2006). Mapping whose reality? Geographic information systems (GIS) and “Wild Science”.
Public Understanding of Science, 15, 411–443.
Fisher, P., Farrelly, C., Maddocks, A., & Ruggles, C. L. N. (1997). Spatial analysis of visible areas from the
bronze age cairns of Mull. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(7), 581–592.
Fleming, A. (1999). Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, 18(2), 119–125.
Fleming, A. (2005). Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. Antiquity, 79(306), 921–932.
Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal,
16(3), 267–280.
508 Llobera
Gaffney, V., Stancic, Z., & Watson, H. (1996). Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps toward
a larger archaeological context for GIS. In M. Aldenderfer & H. D. G. Maschner (Eds.), Anthropology,
space, and geographic information systems (pp. 132–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Oxford: Polity Press.
Gillings, M. (2009). Visual affordance, landscape and the megaliths of Alderney. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, 28(4), 335–356.
Graig, W. J., & Elwood, S. A. (1998). How and why community groups use maps and geographic
information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 95–104.
Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R., Brown, K., Combes, P., Herring, E., & Thomas, M. S. (2006). Phenomenology
in practice: towards a methodology for a “subjective” approach. European Journal of Archaeology, 9(1),
31–71.
Hodder, I. (1991). Interpretive archaeology and its role. American Antiquity, 56, 7–18.
Ingold, T. (1987). Territoriality and tenure: the appropriation of space in hunting and gathering societies. In The
appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and human relations (pp. 130–164). Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Ingold, T. (2000). Maps, wayfinding and navigation. In The perception of the environment. Essays in
livelihood, dwelling and skill (pp. 219–242). London: Routledge.
Lake, M. W., Woodman, P. E., & Mithen, S. J. (1998). Tailoring GIS software for archaeological
applications: an example concerning viewshed analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(1),
27–38.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Llobera, M. (2001). Building past landscape perception with GIS: understanding topographic prominence.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 1005–1011.
Llobera, M. (2003). Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. International
Journal of Geographic Information Science, 17(1), 25–48.
Llobera, M. (2007). Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeology, 39(1), 51–69.
Llobera, M. (2010). Archaeological visualization: towards an archaeological information science. Archae-
ological Method and Theory, 18(3), 193–223.
Lock, G. (2010). Representations of space and place in the humanities. In D. J. Bodenhamer, J. Corrigan, &
T. M. Harris (Eds.), The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities scholarship (pp. 89–109).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lock, G., & Harris, T. (2006). Enhancing predictive modeling: location, landscape, and culture. In M.
Mehrer & K. L. Westcott (Eds.), GIS and archaeological site location modeling (pp. 41–62). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Pickles, J. (1995). Representation in an information age: geography, GIS and democracy. In J. Pickles (Ed.),
Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 1–30). New York: The
Guildford Press.
Renfrew, C. (1994). Towards a cognitive archaeology. In C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient
mind: elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 3–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sui, D. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie's new tattoo and the future
of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32, 1–5.
Thomas, J. (Ed.). (2000). Interpretive archaeology: a reader. London: Leicester University Press.
Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. (2006). A reply to Christopher Witmore, Håkon Glørstad, Søren Kjørup and Ola W. Jensen.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 39(1), 62–69.
Thomas, J. (2008). Archaeology, landscape and dwelling. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of
landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Tilley, C. (1994). The phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. (2004). The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. (2008a). Body and image: explorations in landscape phenomenology 2. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Tilley, C. (2008b). Phenomenological approaches to landscape archaeology. In B. David & J. Thomas
(Eds.), Handbook of landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Tilley, C. (2010). Interpreting landscapes: explorations in landscape phenomenology 3. Walnut Creek: Left
Coast Press.
van der Leeuw, S., & Kohler, T. (Eds.). (2007). The model-based archaeology of socio-natural systems.
Santa Fe: School of Advanced Research.
Challenges of Digital Methods Within Interpretive Landscape Archaeology 509
Verhagen, P., & Whitley, T. G. (2011). Integrating archaeological theory and predictive modeling: a live report
from the scene. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. doi:10.1007/s10816-011-9102-7.
Wickstead, H. (2007). Land division and identity in later prehistoric dartmoor, South-West Britain: trans-
locating tenure. Unpublished PhD thesis. University College, London.
Wickstead, H. (2009). The über-archaeologist: art, GIS and the male gaze revisited. Journal of Social
Archaeology, 9(2), 249–271.
Woodman, P. E. (2000). Beyond significant patterning, towardspast intentions: the location of Orcadian
chambered tombs. Proceedings of the UK Chapter of Computer Applications andQuantitative Methods
in Archaeology. In C. Buck, V. Cummings, C. Henley, S. Mills, & S. Trick (Eds.), British archaeo-
logical reports international (Vol. 844, pp. 91–105). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Copyright of Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory is the property of Springer Science & Business
Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.