Participatory Mapping and Participatory GIS for Historical and Archaeological Landscape Studies: a Critical Review

Larraín, Alina Álvarez; McCall, Michael K.

doi:10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z

Cited by 53 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By the fifteenth century AD, NWA was part of Kollasuyu, the southern region of the Inka Empire. 4 According with many studies (D'Altroy, 1992; D'Altroy, Williams, & Lorandi, 2007;Williams, 2000Williams, , 2004Williams & D'Altroy, 1998) Mendocino (González & Tarragó, 2004Tarragó et al, 2017 (Wood, 2010), this has also been recognized in the field of archaeology (Flexner, 2009 of this topic see Alvarez Larrain & McCall, 2019a, and references cited therein). A PM approach can contribute to a reflexive mapping practice in archaeology through the incorporation of local spatial knowledge, which is always place-based and presents a close physical interaction with the landscape.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers and practitioners who advocate reflexive mapping practices recognize that mapping is not an objective practice and that maps are necessarily the product of the people who create them (Wood, 2010), this has also been recognized in the field of archaeology (Flexner, 2009). Although PM in archaeological studies is not yet widely practiced, it is a growing field (for a detailed overview of this topic see Álvarez Larrain & McCall, 2019a, 2020, and references cited therein). A PM approach can contribute to a reflexive mapping practice in archaeology through the incorporation of local spatial knowledge, which is always place‐based and presents a close physical interaction with the landscape.…”

Section: Participatory Mapping In Yocavilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This responds not only to a change in perspective of archaeologists but also to a growing demand from local communities. In relation to this first trend, we can mention Indigenous and community‐based archaeologies with several decades of ongoing work (Atalay, 2012; Phillips & Allen, 2010; Smith & Wobst, 2005), and most recently, participatory‐action research in increasing development within the discipline (Álvarez Larrain & McCall, 2019a; Mickel, 2020; Rosenzweig, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Participatory mapping and UAV photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies: an example from north‐western Argentina

Larraín

Greco

Tarragó

2020

Archaeological Prospection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we highlight the relevance of a combination of a participatory mapping approach and unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies. We exemplify this approach with the discovery and mapping of the Cerro Quemado site, located in the Yocavil valley in north‐western Argentina. The site presents a local Inka architecture pattern corresponding to an administrative centre type settlement of the southern provinces of the empire and is placed closely to one of the main routes of the Inka road that runs through the bottom of the valley. The implications of this finding are substantive in terms of a more complete understanding of the expansion of the Inkas in this region. The finding of Cerro Quemado has been possible thanks to the local spatial knowledge registered by the implementation of a participatory mapping approach with students and teachers of a local high school. Its expedited registration and the preliminary map of the structures presented here was facilitated by drone technology and spatial photogrammetry that helped to define in a cost efficient and quick way its architectural pattern.

show abstract

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participatory Mapping In Yocavilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Participatory mapping and UAV photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies: an example from north‐western Argentina

Larraín

Greco

Tarragó

2020

Archaeological Prospection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This new modern archaeology includes the application of “Big Data” projects (e.g., Bevan 2015; McCoy 2017; VanValkenburgh and Dufton 2020), digital recording devices and software (e.g., Hill et al. 2019; McCuistion, Brown, and Harpole 2019), and digital heritage resources (e.g., Perry 2019; Watrall 2019); expanded remote‐sensing capabilities and crowdsourced data collection (e.g., Álvarez Larrain and McCall 2019; Luo et al. 2019; Parcak 2019); a surge in agent‐based modeling, network analysis, and computer simulations (e.g., Romanowska et al.…”

Section: Transhuman Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confronting the Present: Archaeology in 2019

Rosenzweig

2020

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postmodernity has a distinctly pre‐apocalyptic feel to it, and this feeling has seeped into archaeology. A review of the scholarship from 2019 attests that archaeologists are having to reckon with present‐day conditions and phenomena as they structure their research, delineate the material world, and affirm archaeology's relevance. Furthermore, these concerns have moved from the realm of the rarely spoken and come to constitute a critical conversation in the field. In a number of respects, the contours of archaeology now hinge upon the discipline's responses to developments in real time, including: How can archaeological knowledge production escape the logistical and epistemological bounds of late capitalism and its failures? Can archaeology contribute to future‐building, and what would that look like? Does archaeology have to be scholar‐activism to achieve the goal of making the past matter (to whom) (for what)? [archaeology, contemporary archaeology, future archaeology, current issues]

show abstract

“…There are various ways of incorporating indigenous perceptions and beliefs about landscape into GIS analysis, and many important contributions have been made to steep archaeological applications of GIS in more inclusive social frameworks (e.g., Bevan and Conolly 2004;Bongers, Arkush and Harrower 2012;Fitzjohn 2007;Garcia-Moreno 2013;Gillings 2012;Hacıgüzeller 2012;Llobera 1996Llobera , 2001Llobera , 2003Llobera , 2007Llobera , 2012Lock 2001;Lock, Kormann and Pouncett 2014;McCoy and Ladefoged 2009;Mitcham 2002;Rennell 2012;Supernant 2017;Van Dyke et al 2016;Wheatley 1995;Wheatley andGillings 2000, 2002;Williams and Nash 2006, among others). A critical branch of this research has focused on incorporating participatory Geographic Information Systems as a way of engaging indigenous non-specialists in the collection, storage, and mobilization of local spatial knowledge, especially in regard to archaeological or other traditional heritage sites (to name a few: Álvarez Larrain and McCall 2019;Atalay 2012;Barlindhaug 2013;Byrne 2008;Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2010;DeGraff and Baldwin 2013;Duin et al 2014;Flexner 2015;Guilfoyle and Mitchell 2015;Harris 2012;Heckenberger 2009;Purser 2012;Smith et al 2012;Thomas and Ross 2013). Below,...…”

Section: Part 2 Real or Contrived? The Meaning We Assign To Values Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Unbinding Diversity Measures in Archaeology Using GIS

Burg

Howey

2020

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty years ago, a seminal volume drew together leaders in the field who were working on quantifying diversity in archaeological assemblages, Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology (Leonard and Jones, eds. 1989). While several papers identified space as a critical factor in structuring diversity, this concept was largely unaddressed and the analyses presented remained intrasite in scope. This was certainly due, in part, to the analytic and conceptual limitations of spatial analysis in archaeology in the late 1980s. Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology came out just before the geospatial revolution hit full swing in the field and the capabilities of today's geospatial technologies were unimaginable at the time. Now, thirty years later, the desire to analyze diversity across multiple sites from entire regions is easy to realize computationally. Nevertheless, key challenges identified in the original volume about quantifying diversity persist. While one can measure variation to identify diversity, we still need to understand what that means and how the categories we use to compute diversity are related to actual variation in past behavior(s) of interest. We explore various geospatial approaches that can help untether diversity analyses from traditional site-based frameworks. We argue that centering the experiences of the people producing and, importantly, perceiving the variation extant in their landscape is essential, as these personal experiences structured the past diversity we aim to study.

show abstract

Participatory Mapping and Participatory GIS for Historical and Archaeological Landscape Studies: a Critical Review

Cited by 53 publications

References 76 publications

Participatory mapping and UAV photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies: an example from north‐western Argentina

Participatory mapping and UAV photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies: an example from north‐western Argentina

Confronting the Present: Archaeology in 2019

Unbinding Diversity Measures in Archaeology Using GIS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About