Geospatial modeling approach to monument construction using Michigan from A.D. 1000–1600 as a case study

Abstract

Building monuments was one way that past societies reconfigured their landscapes in response to shifting social and ecological factors. Understanding the connections between those factors and monument construction is critical, especially when multiple types of monuments were constructed across the same landscape. Geospatial technologies enable past cultural activities and environmental variables to be examined together at large scales. Many geospatial modeling approaches, however, are not designed for presence-only (occurrence) data, which can be limiting given that many archaeological site records are presence only. We use maximum entropy modeling (MaxEnt), which works with presence-only data, to predict the distribution of monuments across large landscapes, and we analyze MaxEnt output to quantify the contributions of spatioenvironmental variables to predicted distributions. We apply our approach to co-occurring Late Precontact (ca. A.D. 1000-1600) monuments in Michigan: (i) mounds and (ii) earthwork enclosures. Many of these features have been destroyed by modern development, and therefore, we conducted archival research to develop our monument occurrence database. We modeled each monument type separately using the same input variables. Analyzing variable contribution to MaxEnt output, we show that mound and enclosure landscape suitability was driven by contrasting variables. Proximity to inland lakes was key to mound placement, and proximity to rivers was key to sacred enclosures. This juxtaposition suggests that mounds met local needs for resource procurement success, whereas enclosures filled broader regional needs for intergroup exchange and shared ritual. Our study shows how MaxEnt can be used to develop sophisticated models of past cultural processes, including monument building, with imperfect, limited, presence-only data.archaeology | monuments | landscape | maximum entropy modeling | Great Lakes M onuments, such as pyramids, earthworks, and mounds, have long attracted archaeological attention. Monuments, being larger and more striking than other archaeological remains, were first treated as distinct developments. Over time, archaeological research has shown that monuments were commonplace. Building monuments was one way past societies spatially and materially reconfigured their cultural landscapes in response to the variable social and ecological factors that they encountered. Understanding the impact of spatial and material landscape reconfigurations, including monuments, on societal development remains a grand challenge for archaeology (1).Given socioecological factors varied both spatially and temporally, regions where monuments formed part of the response to these factors frequently came to host different, multiple, and overlapping arrays of monuments (2-5). When faced with multimonumental landscapes, it is critical for archaeologists to be able to identify the interplay of socioecological factors in the distribution of each monument type. This identification, however, can be daunting, especially...

Ancient Amazonian populations left lasting impacts on forest structure

“…Such a focus on unique environmental variables has also been shown in other archaeological studies using predictive modeling (Neves et al 2004, McMichael et al 2012a, b, Bovin et al 2016, Howey et al 2016. The specific environmental preferences and cultural patterns of ancient people, however, might have also varied across the vastness of Amazonia (McMichael et al 2012a, b).…”

“…, Howey et al. ). The specific environmental preferences and cultural patterns of ancient people, however, might have also varied across the vastness of Amazonia (McMichael et al.…”

“…Response curves were generated for each input variable in our MaxEnt model. Jackknife tests were run to examine the importance, or relative contribution, of each variable to the model, both when the variable was used exclusively to build the model and when it is excluded from the model (Howey et al 2016). Jackknife tests were done for both training and test datasets.…”

Ancient human disturbances may be skewing our understanding of Amazonian forests

“…Maxent models have been used to model archaeological features in other geographic regions of the world (64,65), and were used to create each probabilistic component of the summed probability AHI model. Each model used the georeferenced occurrence points of the archaeological feature (e.g., geoglyphs, ADEs) (Fig.…”

Remotely Sensed Big Data and Iterative Approaches to Cultural Feature Detection and Past Landscape Process Analysis

“…We did not use known cache pits, rather our process examined the entire DTM for candidate cache pits based on physical aspects of cache pit microtopography. The full details of our cache pit delineation workflow are published in PLOS One and we refer the reader to this open access publication for this information (Howey, Palace, and McMichael 2016). After the application of our cache pit delineation workflow, we had a total of 543 candidate cache pit clusters.…”