THE INTEGRATION OF PATH DETECTION AND MODELLING STATE · PDF filethe integration of path detection and modelling . state-of-the-art and future prospects . seminar ‘detection and

THE INTEGRATION OF PATH DETECTION AND MODELLING STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF

ANCIENT PATHWAYS’

AMSTERDAM, 27 JUNE 2016

LAURE NUNINGER & PHILIP VERHAGEN

LAURE NUNINGER

© Vitor Schietti

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

▪ introduction: at the crossroad? ▪ trends in path detection ▪ trends in path modelling ▪ terminology: path, trail, road & network

▪ state-of-the-art : a comparison ▪ bridging the gap(s) ▪ final discussion: a tentative research agenda

OUTLINE

2 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016


▪ settlement pattern studies focus on place ▪ road systems are often based on historical or military pathways ▪ archaeology of movement is agent-based ▪ paths and networks are shaped by human activities

AT THE CROSSROAD?


© Marty Hogan © Carlos Casas © Mickael Halliwell


▪ photo-interpretation & old planimetry > long tradition based on aerial photography > overlay using mapping & GIS > driven by thematic approach > network – road system approach vs. indicators to find sites

▪ (semi-)automated detection

> described as ‘taboo’ (Bennett et al. 2014) > driven by need to deal with ‘big data’ > very technical approach (Vletter 2014, 2015) > lacking ontology

▪ ground-truthing: what do we detect?

> unexploited potential of historical mapping and documentation > procedures for field testing needed (cf. predictive modelling) > linking to other prospection tools (field survey, RS, geophysics …) > connecting isolated “path sites” (excavation)


TRENDS IN DETECTION


▪ from LCPs to accessibility maps > movement potential (Llobera 2000, Mlekuž 2014) – landscape based > mobility basins (Llobera et al. 2011) – site centered > corridors (Fovet 2010, Howey 2011) – connection-based > cumulative cost paths (Whitley & Hicks 2003, Verhagen 2013) – landscape/connection-based

▪ sensitivity analysis > comparison of technical solutions (Herzog 2014) > comparison of input parameters > scale effects (Verhagen 2013, Llobera 2015) > efficiency of paths and network structures

▪ network analysis

> robustness of structure > centrality potential

▪ agent-based modelling

> models individual decision-making processes > simulations can explore potential routes


TRENDS IN MODELLING


▪ Landscapes of Movement. Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson, and J. Andrew Darling (2009)

▪ Chapter 12

> Routes through the Landscape: A Comparative Approach, by Timothy Earle


TERMINOLOGY: PATH, TRAIL, ROAD

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 7 SEMINAR ‘DETECTION AND MODELLING OF ANCIENT PATHWAYS’ 27/06/2016


Type Earle's definition Archaeological evidence LiDAR and/or modelling

Path Local trodden ways, unmodified and unmarked except in difficult terrain, provide the routes of general movement between houses, field… They exist in all societies, their functions are essentially individual, made by personal movement. Can be stable when constrained by specific landscape characteristics but no more permanent than the pattern of household movements.

Archaeologically, the recognition of path is difficult because of their ephemeral. Openings in a wall or steps up a terrace may identify waypoints on path but not paths themselves. In ploughed fields, paths are largely unrecognizable.

LiDAR remote sensing opens new perspectives to recognise this type of routes of movement (Štular 2011, Mlekuž 2013). New interest in modelling these paths, like hollow ways (Mlekuž 2014); reticular patterns left by animals/people (Lefebvre 1991), meshworks (Ingold 2007), field system paths (Georges-Leroy et al. 2011)

Trail Regional and long-distance routes marked by repeated use, by signs and on maps. Movement by people often through unfamiliar foreign lands, trail must have those marking to aid direction. Trails reflect the particular constraints of a region's topography, periodic movement (trade, seasonal movement, sacred journey…) and land tenure practices. Trail use is both individual and group oriented (moving greater distance from home intimate knowledge of route decreases and marks are increasingly important).

Trails are accessible for detailed study but the lack of construction makes them difficult to document archaeologically.

Detection using imagery (Ur 2003, Kennedy 1998, Altaweel 2003). Long-standing interest in LCP modelling, often approached as ‘corridors’ (White 2007, Howey 2011, Murrieta-Flores 2012, Llobera 2015) and coupled to visibility analysis.



Type Earle's definition Archaeological evidence LiDAR and/or modelling

Road Regional and sometimes long-distance routes built by chiefdoms and states. Roads have major capital improvements that include bridges, culverts, causeways, and pavements that facilitate and formalize movement.

Because of their built facilities and infrastructure, roads are relatively easy to document archaeologically (linear form).

Detection: new perspectives under forest canopies to detect border and causeways (Chase et al. 2011, Argote-Espino & Chávez 2005). LCP modelling focusing on roads that are not very well recognized (Verhagen & Jeneson 2012, Verhagen et al. 2014, Güimil-Fariña & Parcero-Oubiña 2015).

Waterways

Not specifically defined Can only be derived from infrastructure offering access to waterways (quays, harbours, jetties), and remains of vessels.

Detection: canals associated to trackways - local approach (Keay et al. 2014). Few modelling applications (Whitley et al. 2010), but same principles apply. Extra complications are waves, currents and tides.


THE 3 DIMENSIONS OF EARLE'S TERMINOLOGY

SPACE

VOLU

ME

PATH

TRAIL

ROAD

low

hi

gh

local long distance

Chase et al. 2011

Mlekuž 2014

Modelling papers

Detection papers

Argote-Espino Chávez 2005

Ur 2003 Štular 2011

Georges-Leroy et al. 2011

Fruchart 2014

Ladefoged et al. 2011

Entwistle 2009

Vletter 2015 Groenhuijzen

Verhagen 2015

Whitley et al. 2010

Murrieta-Flores 2012

Llobera 2015

Güimil-Fariña Parcero-Oubiña

2015

White Barber 2012

Lock et al. 2014

Fovet Zakšek 2014


▪ meshwork of paths ▪ network of communication based on trails ▪ road systems linked to military or political frames

▪ concept of connectivity (Kantner 2011) > how does connectivity emerge across space? > how is it maintained over time?


PATWAYS TO NETWORKS ?

- SCALE +


EARLE’S VARIABLES FOR DESCRIBING PATHS

variable evidence detection / modelling

amount of construction / over what time

traces left by movement activities (erosion, construction, markers) and specific structures (walls, ditches) D

technology of movement walking, riding, wheeled vehicles M

characteristics of terrain topography, land use DM

points / places of access / stewardship

settlements, buildings, storage areas, fields, cemeteries, crossroads, natural features DM

functions subsistence, resource acquisition, ceremonial, military, trade, social exchange M

form / network organization size, shape (radial, dendritic) D

scale local, regional, long-distance DM

meaning physical, spiritual, social, political, historical ??


▪ the practices of movement, communication and transport > model will only give you partial networks, depending on model parameters > LiDAR will give you the full palimpsest (or almost…)

▪ the environmental context > influences form (land use and microtopography) and possibility for detection > palaeogeography (water barrier, wetlands…)

▪ historical trajectory > use and afterlife of pathways - changing of meaning > influence of pathways on land use and settlement

▪ from theory to data and back > confront model and ‘data’ > what does the absence of roads / networks say? > rethink the system using the concept of connectivity (combining different types of routes:

paths, trails, roads, waterways)


BRIDGING THE GAP(S)


▪ group discussion > groups of 4-5 people > discussion topic for groups

> Group 1: practices of movement > Group 2: environmental context and trajectory > Group 3: historical trajectory (use and afterlife) > Group 4: confronting models and data (and what about absence) > Group 5: rethinking connectivity

▪ discuss the possibilities of LiDAR and modelling for your topic

> where are the opportunities and difficulties in detection and modelling for this topic? > what approach should we take?

▪ report back in 30 minutes


FINAL DISCUSSION: A RESEARCH AGENDA?


▪ linear features

> straight or curved, but generally with low sinuosity > limited width, substantial length > may go against the gradient > incomplete / fragmented > intersections of linear features at sharp angles

▪ network structures > points of departure and arrival > additional nodes in network

▪ limited vertical expression > positive (talus) and negative (hollow ways) > sometimes very specific (ditch – talus – ditch)


AN ONTOLOGY OF PATHWAYS?

▪ construction / practice

> intentional / non-intentional > distance of movement > environmental context > technology of movement

▪ history of usage / function > changes in usage > multiple uses > ownership

▪ afterlife

> (partial) destruction > erosion / sedimentation

MORPHOLOGY TRAJECTORY


BRIDGING THE GAP(S)


▪ Argote-Espino, D. and Chávez, R. E. (2005). Detection of possible archaeological pathways in central Mexico through digital processing of remote sensing images. Archaeological Prospection, 12(2), 105-114.

▪ Bennett, R., D. Cowley and V. De Laet (2014). The data explosion: tackling the taboo of automatic feature recognition in airborne survey data. Antiquity 88:896-905.

▪ Chase, A. F., Chase, D. Z., Weishampel, J. F., Drake, J. B., Shrestha, R. L., Slatton, K. C., ... & Carter, W. E. (2011). Airborne LiDAR, archaeology, and the ancient Maya landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:387-398.

▪ Earle, T. (2009). Routes through the landscape, a comparative approach. In: Snead, J.E., Erickson, C.L. and Darling, J.A. (eds.) Landscapes of Movement. Trails, Paths and Roads in Anthropological Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 253-309.

▪ Güimil-Fariña, A. and Parcero-Oubiña, C. (2015). “Dotting the joins”: a non-reconstructive use of Least Cost Paths to approach ancient roads. The case of the Roman roads in the NW Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Archaeological Science 54:31–44.

▪ Herzog, I. (2014). Least-cost Paths – Some Methodological Issues. Internet Archaeology 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.36.5 ▪ Howey, M.C.L. (2011). Multiple pathways across past landscapes: circuit theory as a complementary geospatial method to least cost

path for modeling past movement. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2523–2535. ▪ Keay, S. J., Parcak, S. H., & Strutt, K. D. (2014). High resolution space and ground-based remote sensing and implications for

landscape archaeology: the case from Portus, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 52:277-292. ▪ Llobera, M. (2000). Understanding movement: a pilot model towards the sociology of movement. In G. Lock (ed.), Beyond the Map.

Archaeology and Spatial Technologies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 65-84. ▪ Llobera, M., Fábrega-Álvarez, P. and Parcero-Oubiña, C. (2011). Order in movement: a GIS approach to accessibility. Journal of

Archaeological Science 38:843-851. ▪ Llobera, M. (2015). Working the Digital: Some Thoughts from Landscape Archaeology. In Chapman, R. and Wylie, A. (eds.): Material

Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 173- 88. ▪ Lock, G., M. Kormann, and J. Pouncett (2014). Visibility and movement: towards a GIS-based integrated approach In: Polla, S. and

Verhagen, P. (eds.) Computational Approaches to Movement in Archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 23-42.


REFERENCES


▪ Mlekuž, D. (2013). Messy landscapes: lidar and the practices of landscaping. In: Opitz, R. and Cowley, D. (eds.) Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 90-101

▪ Mlekuž, D. (2014). Exploring the topography of movement. In: Polla, S. and Verhagen, P. (eds.) Computational Approaches to Movement in Archaeology. Theory, practice and interpretation of factors and effects of long term landscape formation and transformation. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 5-22.

▪ Murrieta-Flores, P. (2012). Understanding movement during Late Prehistory through spatial technologies: The role of natural areas of transit in South-Western Iberia. Trabajos de Prehistoria 69:114-133.

▪ White, D.A. (2007). Transportation, integration, facilitation: Prehistoric trail networks of the Western Papaguería. Boulder: University of Colorado.

▪ White, D.A. and Barber, S.B. (2012). Geospatial modeling of pedestrian transportation networks: a case study from precolumbian Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2684-2696.

▪ Whitley, T.G., Moore, G., Goel, G. and Jackson, D. (2010). Beyond the Marsh: Settlement Choice, Perception and Spatial Decision-Making on the Georgia Coastal Plain. In Frischer, B., Crawford, J. and Kollers, D. (eds.) CAA 2009. Making History Interactive. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 37th Conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 380-390.


REFERENCES

Documents

THE INTEGRATION OF PATH DETECTION AND MODELLING STATE · PDF filethe integration of path detection and modelling . state-of-the-art and future prospects . seminar ‘detection and