GIS and Intra-Site Spatial Analyses: An Integrated Approach for Recording and Analyzing the Fossil Deposits at Casablanca Prehistoric Sites (Morocco)

Abstract

The Mio-Plio-Pleistocene sequence at Casablanca, covering the last six million years, is well known in scientific literature. The variability and the chronology of the Acheulian sequence is documented by systematic, modern and controlled investigations in various sites (Unit L and Hominid Cave at Thomas I Quarry, Rhinoceros Cave at Oulad Hamida 1 Quarry, Sidi Abderrahman Extension Quarry, Bear's Cave and Cap Chatelier at Sidi Abderrahman Quarry) which have taken place within the framework of the Franco-Moroccan co-operative project "Casablanca". In order to manage the excavation data and to explore the taphonomic nature of Unit L, Hominid Cave and Rhinoceros Cave, where research is still in progress, an approach combining a Geographic Information System (GIS) and spatial analysis techniques was developed, incorporating all existing information produced from previous excavations and recent surveys of the sites. The amalgamation of this data into a GIS has resulted in a digital database that allows the production of simultaneous or separate visualizations and analyses of the fossils, artifacts and geological materials within their original spatial contexts and also permits intra-site spatial analyses that allow a comprehensive investigation of the site formation processes.

Mapping the past: GIS and intrasite spatial analyses of fossil deposits in paleontological sites and their applications in taxonomy, taphonomy and paleoecology

“…The numbers in brackets indicate the counts of the group in the database. ferent maps of the whole bed (Gallotti et al, 2011). For example, the functionality of the QGIS 2.12 program was used to calculate the point density in each cell using point-and area-type features respectively (Figure 8).…”

“…Their results indicate that this sorting pattern refers to transport conditions and that the size, shape, and density of bones are key factors during the transportation. The vertical and horizontal distribution of different types of bones are varying according to the physical properties of the bonebed, and thus, the variations in depositional processes are best demonstrated in three dimensions to establish the relative changes across the site (Anderson and Burke, 2008;Bamforth et al, 2005;Britt et al, 2009;Gallotti et al, 2011).…”

“…The importance of spatial technology in the interpretation of paleontological and archeological data has long been recognized and can be classified into three categories: data management, visualization, and spatial analysis (Harris and Lock, 1995;Goodchild et al, 1992;Breithaupt et al, 2004;Katsianis et al, 2008;McCoy and Ladefoged, 2009;Wheatley, 1995;Wheatley and Gillings, 2003;Anemone et al, 2011 and references there in). Also, several mapping techniques were developed characterizing the processes which influenced the formation of the excavated site (e.g., Jennings and Hasiotis 2006;Anderson and Burke, 2008; Benito-Calvo and de la Torre, 2011; Gallotti et al, 2011;de la Torre and Benito-Calvo, 2013;Bertog et al, 2014;Birkenfeld et al, 2015;Giusti and Arzarello, 2016 and reference there in). Archaeologists have already implemented quantitative methodologies in order to evaluate the measured data (e.g., Nigro et al, 2003;McPherron, 2005;McCoy and Ladefoged 2009;Anderson and Burke, 2008;Houshiar et al, 2015; Giusti and Arzarello, 2016 and references therein), but in paleontology these methods are infrequently applied, and researchers rather relied on the visual interpretation of bone distributions for the identification of spatial patterning within paleontological levels (Eberth et al, 2006).…”

Mapping Three-Dimensional Density Patterns for Analyzing Artefact (Re)distribution Trends in Palaeolithic Sites

“…In the last two decades these techniques have been frequently processed through the topological properties of the Geographical Information System (GIS). This has been employed for a long time in archaeological landscape studies (Petrie et al, 1995) and has recently been applied to interpretations of intrasite spatial distribution trends of artefacts (Benito-Calvo & de la Torre, 2011;Cooper & Qiu, 2006;Craig et al, 2006;D'Andrea et al, 2000D'Andrea et al, , 2002Gallotti & Piperno, 2004;Gallotti et al, , 2011Lembo & Gallotti, 2006;Nigro et al, 2001Nigro et al, , 2003Peretto et al, 2010;Thomas et al, 1996;Vullo et al, 1999).…”

Site formation processes of the early Acheulean assemblage at EF-HR (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania)

“…Taphonomic attributes of artefacts have long been used to assess post-depositional disturbance (e.g., Schick, 1984;Petraglia and Potts, 1994;Lenoble, 2005;Bertran et al, 2006;Lotter et al, 2016;de la Torre et al, 2017), and in recent years, GIS spatial analysis has become more common in ESA and Lower Palaeolithic archaeology (e.g., Alperson-Afil et al, 2009;Boschian and Sacca, 2010;Benito-Calvo and de la Torre, 2011;Gallotti et al, 2011;Bohner et al, 2015). By combining both proxies, our objectives are two-fold: to introduce methodological innovations that can help assess the impact of human and natural agents on the formation of ESA sites, and to provide a contextual framework to decipher hominin behaviour captured in the EF-HR assemblage.…”