GIS methods for assessment of hydrogeomorphic risk and anthropogenic impact which affect the archaeological sites. Case study: Dealul Mare archaeological site, Moldavian Plateau (Romania)

Abstract

On the territory of Moldova Plateau (Eastern Romania), the degradation of prehistoric archaeological sites is a major issue concerning their conservation. The intensification of soil erosion, actual geomorphological processes and human impact (agriculture, over-grazing, exploitation) are the main causes leading to their destruction. For this reason, different approaches and methods, from scientifical works, were used to assess the intensity of erosion in this region of the country, but most of them have focused only on soil degradation. This study proposes a GIS method, to evaluate not only hydrogeomorphological hazards but also human impact that affecting archaeological sites, which use multiple thematic layers quantified in a single evaluating system (Likerd-type scale). A risk map was generated on 1sqkm extend and based on geoformula, which was adapted for a case study (Dealul Mare archaeological site). In calculation of this geoformula were inserted the following parameters: slope, the occurrence frequency for landslides based on aspect classes, potential water flow erosion depending on land use, potential soil types erosion, surface and liniar erosion, landslides and slope gravitational processes and human impact. The spatial analysis use a digital terrain model (DTM) with a high precision (0.25 sqm/pixel), based on LiDAR technology. Contrary to the traditional scientifical papers, characterized by subjectivity, in this study the detailed identification of risk areas was allowed by a largescale analysis. The proposed method can be applied to all archaeological sites, in Moldova Plateau, and also can be a tool for commencement of conservation works for archaeological sites which can be at risk of being destroyed.Alin Mihu-Pintilie et al.: GIS methods for assessment of hydrogeomorphic risk and anthropogenic impact which affect the archaeological sites. Case study: Dealul Mare archaeological site, Moldavian Plateau (Romania)

GIS-based Landform Classification of Eneolithic Archaeological Sites in the Plateau-plain Transition Zone (NE Romania): Habitation Practices vs. Flood Hazard Perception

“…The highest declivity corresponds to the fronts of the cuestas, generally with an eastern or north-eastern slope aspect, and the gentle slope with the backs of the cuestas with southern or south-western aspects (Figure 1f landforms produces two different types of slope: (i) cuesta dip slopes characterized by a low roughness; (ii) cuesta scarp slopes, generally affected by deep stream incision at the base, diffuse and well-defined gully erosion along the slopes, and landslides [43,44,48]. Generally, this typical morpho-structure along with the headwaters and local ridges in the valley of the Baseu, Jijia, and Bahlui rivers, are the main small-scale landforms used by prehistoric populations for the placement of settlements in this region [35][36][37][38]47,49]. The general morpho-structural setting consists of a monocline, dominated by cuesta landforms and deeply incised valleys, where the strata are gently dipping from northwest to southeast (Miocene-Pleistocene deposits) [42].…”

“…The landscape dominated by the cuesta landforms produces two different types of slope: (i) cuesta dip slopes characterized by a low roughness; (ii) cuesta scarp slopes, generally affected by deep stream incision at the base, diffuse and well-defined gully erosion along the slopes, and landslides [43,44,48]. Generally, this typical morpho-structure along with the headwaters and local ridges in the valley of the Baseu, Jijia, and Bahlui rivers, are the main small-scale landforms used by prehistoric populations for the placement of settlements in this region [35][36][37][38]47,49].…”

“…3850-3500 BCE) [35,[39][40][41]. Besides the literature on the morphological features in the study area [42][43][44][45][46], only a few works deal with the local or the relative topographic position of archaeological settlements in the landscape [47,48]; most of them refer to the evaluation of cultural heritage sites to natural hazards (landslides, gully erosion) and anthropogenic impact [49][50][51][52][53][54].Understanding the connections between the small-scale features, large-scale landforms, flood hazard perception, and the types of archaeological settlement is an important method applied in the study of the prehistoric peoples because the landscape can reveal insights into settlement distribution and dynamics over time [4,27]. This paper provides the first landform classification of 730 Eneolithic sites, using the TPI (Topographic Position Index) [3,5,28,55], and the SD (standard deviation) of the mean elevation, abbreviated as DEV by [29], around archaeological sites [3,4,29], which can classify the landscape in terms of slope position and landform categories and morphological classes based on the geomorphology [1,4,56,57].…”

“…This paper provides the first landform classification of 730 Eneolithic sites, using the TPI (Topographic Position Index) [3,5,28,55], and the SD (standard deviation) of the mean elevation, abbreviated as DEV by [29], around archaeological sites [3,4,29], which can classify the landscape in terms of slope position and landform categories and morphological classes based on the geomorphology [1,4,56,57]. The results can provide insights into factors favoring human habitation during the Eneolithic period in the plateau-plain transition zone of NE Romania and contribute to archaeological predictive modelling at regional-scale based on small-scale morphological features and flood hazard patterns [45,49,[58][59][60][61].…”

“…3850-3500 BCE) [35,[39][40][41]. Besides the literature on the morphological features in the study area [42][43][44][45][46], only a few works deal with the local or the relative topographic position of archaeological settlements in the landscape [47,48]; most of them refer to the evaluation of cultural heritage sites to natural hazards (landslides, gully erosion) and anthropogenic impact [49][50][51][52][53][54].…”