Getting Around the Black Box: Teaching (Geophysical) Data Processing through GIS

Kvamme, Kenneth L.

doi:10.5334/jcaa.14

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as has been widely discussed, they have also brought about the risk of becoming "black boxes" (Kvamme, 2018, Mayoral Herrera, et al, 2017b the outcomes of which are still quite often seen with suspicion by many colleagues, especially from the point of view of their (often) dubious capacity of accurately modelling human perception in the landscape. The availability of highresolution tools and data currently constitutes an essential contribution to an increasing relevance of digital means in archaeological research (Opitz and Limp, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now you see me. An assessment of the visual recognition and control of individuals in archaeological landscapes

Fábrega-Álvarez

Parcero‐Oubiña

2019

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visibility analysis has become extremely popular in landscape-oriented archaeology in recent decades and has become even more widespread with the popularization of GIS tools, which have multiplied the ways in which visual perception can be analysed and digitally modelled. Visibility has been used as a proxy for different archaeological approaches, from the analysis of subjective perception to the assessment of strategic control. While interest has most often been focused on how objects, features and sites are perceived, there has also been an interest in how visual control is exerted from archaeological sites or other places in the landscape. Within the latter approaches, the distances at which visual control can be exercised have usually been determined in a more or less arbitrary manner, without a clear and empirically informed reference on how things and, especially, people can be observed and recognized differently at a distance. In this paper, we present the results of a field experiment carried out to measure the distances at which individuals can be spotted, recognized and identified with the naked eye in favourable conditions. Based on these results, we introduce the concept of Individual Distance Viewshed (IDV) as a GIS-based representation of visual control. This will serve as a reference to better qualify potential visibility in landscape analysis. Finally, we illustrate the applicability of this approach with a case study which explores the relationship between visual control and mobility during the Iron Age in the NW of the Iberian Peninsula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now you see me. An assessment of the visual recognition and control of individuals in archaeological landscapes

Fábrega-Álvarez

Parcero‐Oubiña

2019

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One way to achieve this is by encouraging archaeological GIS educators to publish or otherwise share their curriculum. Kvamme (2018) have made concerted efforts to speci cally discuss GIS training in archaeology, which we believe is a more effective way to build a disciplinary consensus about GIS pedagogy. Organization of symposia at major conferences about archaeological GIS education could help further the dialog and build a shared knowledge base about effective pedagogical strategies that could be broadly applied in the discipline.…”

Section: Roadblocks and Ways Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this situation can help exacerbate the mindset of GIS as a "black box" where you can do a set of basic spatial operations to repeatedly produce the same kinds of basic spatial products, such as site and overview maps and feature databases (Kvamme, 2018). Furthermore, the prohibitive cost of enterprise GIS software licenses can be restrictive for smaller entities or entities with smaller or more limited budgets.…”

Section: Roadblocks and Ways Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many current archaeological GIS learners may not have had broad exposure to, or experience with, directory-based computer operating systems, and this may enhance "user fear" when faced with a computer-based GIS system. Kvamme (2018) provides one avenue to progress in this area, which also relates to Roadblock 1, identi ed above. He suggests that computer pro ciency become part of the core curriculum in archaeological GIS training.…”

Section: Roadblock 3: Technical/technological Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Paradigm or Practice? Situating GIS in Contemporary Archaeological Method and Theory

Ullah,

Clow,

Meling

2023

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has been used in archaeology for four decades, and colloquially appears to have become a main tool in the geospatial aspects of archaeological practice. In this paper, we examine temporal trends in the use and/or mention of GIS in archaeological publications (books and journal articles), conference presentations, and websites. We gathered data through keyword searches and with formal sampling surveys and conducted both quantitative and qualitative analyses to characterize the changing nature and intensity of GIS use in archaeology over time. We show how archaeological GIS-use has grown from a few early adopters of the 1980's, through a slow initial integration phase in the 1990's, to a punctuated set of two major expansions in the 2000's and 2010's. While we nd that basic use of GIS has grown to the point where it can be considered ubiquitous -if not universal -in the discipline, we also discovered that the major focus in archaeological GIS advancement is methodological rather than theoretical. We provide a historical context to this temporal pattern and identify ve roadblocks that we believe have hampered the development of a theory-rich archaeological GIS: 1) de ciencies in the archaeological GIS education model, 2) over-reliance on commercial software, 3) technical/technological barriers, 4) gaps in acceptance of GIS, and 5) the perception of GIS as "just a tool." We offer initial suggestions for ways forward to mitigate the effects of these roadblocks and build a more robust, theoretically sophisticated relationship with GIS in archaeology.Recent research into publishing trends in archaeology has elucidated issues of prestige and power inequities (Beck et al., 2021), gender and diversity (Bardolph, 2014;Fulkerson & Tushingham, 2019), and the growth of methodological specialties (Gaffney, 2008). In this paper, we focused on the ubiquity and character of GIS use within archaeology. We proceeded with a three-tiered approach to understanding GIS publication trends. The rst phase was designed to provide a baseline, coarse-grained overview of the general temporal trends of GIS usage within the discipline across a broad set of publication types and venues. The second phase examines trends and types of archaeological GIS usage at a ner, more detailed scale in a targeted subset of publication venues. The nal phase seeks to contextualize the results of the rst two phases and to provide a more nuanced understanding of how archaeologists have used, are using, and will continue to use GIS within the discipline.

show abstract

Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection

Wadsworth,

Halmhofer,

Supernant

2023

Archaeological Prospection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In North America, archaeological prospection has recently undergone a surge in popularity, resulting in higher visibility for both scientific and fringe narratives. This has been partially due to increasingly sensationalized media articles that promote the use of technology to locate overgrown and subsurface features in the landscape. The heightened profile of the field and increasingly sensitive contexts in which it is applied (e.g., locating potential unmarked graves) has expanded the discipline beyond its usual settings where typical archaeological prospection rhetoric and narratives are applied. In this paper, we explore how the presentation of archaeological prospection can impact descendant communities and their burial and cultural spaces. We identify rhetoric, discourse and narrative as key considerations that have resulted in the twisting of interpretations to support fringe narratives. We present two case studies: (1) denialism surrounding unmarked graves at former Indian Residential Schools and (2) the reinterpretation of Indigenous spaces by Graham Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse. We draw upon these seemingly disparate examples as evidence that ambiguity in scholarly communication and ‘certainty’ in fringe communication can both be used to the detriment of Indigenous and other descendant communities in various ways that we term pseudoarchaeological colonialism. Finally, we recommend strategies on how to disseminate results in non‐harmful ways and confront the wrongful usage of archaeological prospection.

show abstract

Getting Around the Black Box: Teaching (Geophysical) Data Processing through GIS

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Now you see me. An assessment of the visual recognition and control of individuals in archaeological landscapes

Now you see me. An assessment of the visual recognition and control of individuals in archaeological landscapes

Paradigm or Practice? Situating GIS in Contemporary Archaeological Method and Theory

Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About