Quantifying visual prominence in social landscapes

Bernardini, Wesley; Barnash, A. N.; Kumler, Mark P; Wong, Martin Cs

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.05.019

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yes, we can use the GIS data to identify "what is next to what", or in this case, how "close in proximity" things are to each other; however, we are missing a critical component -what did these "things" look like? Viewshed analyses measure objects (represented as pixels) as visible or non-visible and while we can employ, for example, Higuchi viewsheds (Higuichi, 1983;Richards-Rissetto, 2010;Wheatley and Gillings, 2000), to account for diminishing vision over distance, other factors affecting visual acuity such as background clarity and color are absent (Bernardini et al, 2013;Wheatley and Gillings, 2000). Yes, we can use a database to code the presence/absence or types of, for example, iconography or hieroglyphs, but the concept of indexicality extends to the third dimension.…”

Section: Visibility Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can GIS + 3D mean for landscape archaeology?

Richards-Rissetto

2017

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Visibility Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can GIS + 3D mean for landscape archaeology?

Richards-Rissetto

2017

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tables Table 1 -The Lanacombe settings. (Gillings et al 2010;Gillings 2013) Bernardini et al (2013). (Gillings et al 2010;Gillings 2013) (image extracted from Google Earth June 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fugitive Monuments and Animal Pathways: Explaining the Stone Settings of Exmoor

Gillings

2015

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of the exclusive use of extremely small megaliths (miniliths) the prehistoric stone settings of Exmoor, SW England, challenge current approaches to the interpretation of monumental stone architecture during the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age. Whilst the broader context of the practice of erecting tiny upright stones (a seemingly diverse and widespread phenomenon) and the reasons why this diminutive architecture has tended to escape sustained critical comment have been explored (smaller stone elements being relegated to a generalised background or subsidiary role such as 'packing'), attempts to explain the settings have been remarkably few. Drawing upon the results of ten years of piecemeal fieldwork on the moor the present paper seeks to rectify this, arguing that far from generalised ritual structures or metaphorical expressions of hunting groups, the tiny stones were instead an integral part of a dynamic human-animal landscape of movement and pause.

show abstract

“…actually not so visible, due to the presence of columns and the narrowness of the visual angle compared to the peristylium entrance door which would have prevented passersby from clearly recognizing the figures and the scenes represented in the fresco (Figure 3). This posed a new problem, related to the visual acuity of the objects (Ogburn 2006;Bernardini et al 2013) and any possible effect played by artificial or natural light, which undoubtedly has a major role in the human perception of space (Papadopoulos and Earl 2014;Papadopoulos, Hamilakis, and Kyparissi-Apostolika 2015). To sum up, this experiment allowed us to define new strategies for an experiential investigation of an ancient built space, which was made possible by combining a set of tools that so far are only available in commercial software package ESRI ArcGIS and which include vector-based LOS, multipatch 3D models and the Model Builder batch processing (Allen 2011).…”

Section: Where Are We Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking GIS, three-dimensionality and space perception in archaeology

Landeschi

2018

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over 30 years GIS has been a major theme in archaeology, leading scholars to debate the way geo-spatial platforms can contribute to a better understanding of the ancient landscape and a more thorough interpretation of the archaeological record. Recently, the introduction of more advanced software and hardware solutions have made it possible to use GIS for visualizing and analysing even geometrically complex 3D contents, in a totally unprecedented way. Still, a theoretical debate on the way three-dimensionality could impact GIS-based research has yet to come and only a few pioneering projects have been conducted to show the potential for the discipline. Among the possible lines of enquiry to be developed in this direction, sensory archaeology seems to be one to benefit more from such an approach. Starting from a review of the current state of research this contribution will attempt to show some important results recently obtained in order to generate some insights on theoretical and methodological issues raised by the use of state-of-the-art 3D GIS and to trace new paths for the future.

show abstract

Quantifying visual prominence in social landscapes

Cited by 48 publications

References 17 publications

What can GIS + 3D mean for landscape archaeology?

What can GIS + 3D mean for landscape archaeology?

Fugitive Monuments and Animal Pathways: Explaining the Stone Settings of Exmoor

Rethinking GIS, three-dimensionality and space perception in archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About