The use of predictive modelling to target Neolithic settlement and occupation activity in mainland Scotland

A macro-fracture investigation of the backed stone tools from Dzombo Shelter, eastern Botswana

“…Fisher's exact test was used (p [F] values; P ≤ 0.05; for details see Upton 1992; see section 3.1) in order to test whether a significant probability of fractures forming on specific tool forms or on certain material types exists. Furthermore, odds values (OR), a comparative test showing the odds of a variable occurring (Pargeter 2013: 7), was used to test whether there was significant change in the presence of backed tools and occurrence of fractures forming between the chronological units (for archaeological examples see Bird 2007;Tallavaara et al 2010;Graves 2011). The formula used is where U1 and U2 are the different units, are backed tools containing impact fractures and are those without.…”

A locally-adaptive model of archaeological potential (LAMAP)

“…A fairly common suite of variables (e.g., Judge and Sebastian, 1988;Wheatley and Gillings, 2002, 166e181;Conolly and Lake, 2006, 179e182;Espa et al, 2006;Jaros1aw and Hildebrand-Radke, 2009;Vaughn and Crawford, 2009;Graves, 2011) was included in the test case for the potential model, which can be categorized into physiographic and resource-oriented types (see Table 1). Particularly with the low-cost and ready availability of medium resolution satellite data, variables based on DEMs should be explored as a matter of course in landscape and settlement studies, and they constitute the basis of the physiographic variables included in this study.…”

“…Although it is frequently assumed such models predict the probability of encountering undiscovered sites, there is a significant difference between describing known-site locations, predicting the locations of unrecorded archaeological resources on the basis of the knowledge gained by describing known-site locations, and the concept of archaeological potential. Despite being cognisant of the important, but often subtle, differences between the aforementioned concepts, some interpretations appear to ignore the differences, which results in poorly conceived interpretations of modelling results (e.g., Vaughn and Crawford, 2009;Graves, 2011). In particular, prediction with reference to probability and the notion of archaeological potential are troublesome and when conflated they obstruct the clear development of conclusions derived from studies involving archaeological prospection.…”

“…Although potential is different than probability, there are examples wherein the interpretation that follows the model clearly relies on defining the latter as tantamount to the former (e.g., Graves, 2011). In order to try and avoid the same confusion, potential for this analysis will be defined as the relative suitability of different land parcels within a confined region for human occupation.…”

GIS-Based and Statistical Approaches in Archaeological Predictive Modelling (NE Romania)

“…The most commonly tested era is the Neolithic, likely due to the pivotal nature of this period, and the fact that landforms were like modern features. Different areas (e.g., Italy [4], Greece [12], Scotland [27]) have distinct landscape features which may have been decisive for prehistoric people when choosing where to place a settlement. For example, in Italy [4], the favoured features were alluvial plains, terraces, caves (lithic industry), and low slope areas, while in Greece [12], the area around Thessaly represented an important connection between the islands of the Aegean Sea with the northern and southern parts of the country, being at the same time characterised by permanent inhabitation.…”