Journal of Archaeological Science (2001) 28, 10051014

doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0720, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS: Understanding

Topographic Prominence
Marcos Llobera*
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, U.K., and Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research
Centre, Pitt Rivers Museum, Department of Anthropology, Oxford University, U.K.
(Received 1 February 2000, revised manuscript accepted 15 May 2001)
This papers tries to illustrate the exploratory use of GIS within the context of landscape research in archaeology.
Current landscape approaches incorporate important theoretical advancements which have made archaeologists
sensitive to the subtleties of human space but these developments have not been matched by advances in method. The
paper focuses on this aspect and thus should be seen as pilot example towards the development of new landscape
methodology.
 2001 Academic Press
Keywords: GIS, LANDSCAPE RESEARCH, COGNITION, AFFORDANCES, TOPOGRAPHIC
PROMINENCE, CHANGE.

Foreword

hile current (less processual) archaeological accounts of landscapes have succeeded in

acknowledging the range and complexity of
processes that occur in a landscape through the incorporation of elements originated in fields such as social
history, sociology and philosophy (phenomenology);
these additions have not been equally matched by the
advent of new methodologies.
In this article an eort is made to disclose what
seems to be the dominant direction of current archaeological approaches to landscape. It also exposes,
though not exhaustively, some of their theoretical and
methodological limitations. This is followed by a further discussion of the concept of aordances, recently
reviewed by Webster (1999), and their exploration
within archaeological landscape research. To end, a
brief example illustrates the advantages of creating
landscape models, in this case using a GIS, in order
to provide formal support for prevailing landscape
accounts and as a way to create new insights in
landscape theory. The reader is urged to examine the
images enclosed closely. Unlike most GIS images used
in archaeology that mimic distribution maps, these
images reveal complex information which incorporates
several levels of abstraction. Thus, the intention of this
paper is to describe the on-going development of new
landscape methodology, but in order to accomplish
this successfully some reference to landscape theory is
necessary.

*E-mail: m.llobera@ucl.ac.uk, llobera@ermine.ox.ac.uk

Current Archaeological Landscape Research

Limitations
Undoubtedly, current landscape approaches incorporate important theoretical advancements which have
made archaeologists sensitive to the intricacies of
space, but which are not free of important deficiencies
(see below). One of them is the gratuity of statements
revolving around complex processes such as landscape
perception and movement. This shortcoming and the
ways in which it may be overcome, constitutes the
main focus of this article.
It has already been mentioned that recent archaeological approaches to space focus on a partial and more
contextualized view, raising many topics that help support the modern notion of landscape as a convoluted
concept. Most of them lay a strong emphasis on the
non-discursive and internal experience of the landscape. Paths, monuments and the human body are key
elements in these descriptions. However, the way these
elements interact in the production and reproduction of
social systems are advanced only within narratives and
seldom do we find eorts to formally tackle them.
Thus, archaeologists advance logical, but uncorroborated, statements about the impact landscape features
may have had on the patterns of movement (Thomas,
1993) or the significance of visible patterns estimated
from certain locations which have not been contrasted
with other possible ones (Bender, Hamilton & Tilley,
1997; Tilley, 1994). Imagination, insight obtained
through fieldwork, and wide theoretical formation are
often the pillars on which these arguments are based,
skilfully webbed together in order to produce an
authoritative reconstruction. While these are very

1005
03054403/01/091005+10 $35.00/0

 2001 Academic Press

1006 M. Llobera

powerful tools, in fact essential ones, they can easily be

dismantled (see Fleming, 1999). Very rarely conclusions about past landscape experience are based on an
exploration that goes beyond the mind and experience
of the archaeologist. The truth is that in order to
explore some of these processes rigorously it is necessary to enter into other fields (e.g. psychology, urbanism) and/or to face the fact that some processes which
are easily addressed are not readily understood. Hence,
interpretations about movement, visual concealment,
aspects of landscape perception in general, are pursued
in a very simplistic manner (see Llobera, 2000).
The diculty of developing methodologies aimed at
the rigorous investigation of interpretative and more
contextual aspects of landscape has already been discussed in other fields such as Environmental Design
(see Zube & Moore, 1987, 1989) but has yet to be
resolved successfully. It raises similar considerations as
those currently found in many archaeological projects
(see Hodder, 1999 for a synthesis). Can we reconcile
some sort of formal methodology while trying to find
out how various landscape perceptions are constructed
or in which contexts are particular perceptions more
plausible? Ultimately, the possibility of conceptualizing
an overarching framework that encompasses interpretative methodologies would require an important
epistemological study which lies beyond the scope of
this paper (see Lemaire, 1997 for background on this
problem).
The advent of some sort of method/s to resolve the
lack of rigor surrounding many of the arguments put
forward in current studies is certainly necessary, but
this concern is not exclusive to archaeologists. In fact,
it may well be an issue that transcends into various
disciplines (e.g. geography, environmental psychology)
some of which have practical applications in todays
world (e.g. urbanism). A discussion on how people
interact with the built environment (e.g. monuments)
as they move has as much to do with archaeology as
with landscape design. But, as far as it concerns
archaeologists, concentrating on monuments and paths
is not the whole issue. Discussions on the role of
more mobile forms of material culture and of surface
material in relation to landscape are also necessary.
We have been so concentrated in reconstructing past
human perceptions that we, the author included, have
neglected to incorporate the artifact in our landscape
narratives.
While the ideals of o-site archaeology are well
established in current fieldworks, so far there has been
no attempt, not at a theoretical level (except, perhaps
Gosdens (1994:16) systems of references), to explore
and develop the link between landscape and say,
surface material. This theoretical gap reflects our narrowness while adopting the works of Bourdieu (1977),
Giddens (1984) and Foucault (1979) which discuss the
structuring capacity of the material world mostly in
relation to the built environment but not in relation to
other facets of materiality.

At a very basic level, assemblages represent places of

past and current meaning. They are used, like monuments, to anchor space i.e. in phenomenological terms
to create place, and therefore may ultimately prove
useful to map out categories of social experience in the
landscape. The role of assemblages (their creation,
their evolution, etc) in a landscape has yet to be
explored in a similar way to landscape features. Do
they represent dierent types of interaction among
people or with the environment? Can we trace spatially
their cultural biography (Gosden & Marshall, 1999)?
How do these biographies change though time? How
do they relate to paths and other landscape features?
Are the social connotations of material culture that
accumulate through time in one location the same
ones? These are a few of the questions that need to be
asked. As archaeologists we need to reconcile the social
and perceptual attributes found in artifacts, their structuring capacity, with those embedded in the landscape.
The development of new artifact attributes, perhaps
more interpretative ones, related to their biography
and a study on how they spread in the landscape, may
set a point of departure.
To summarize, only through the development of new
methodologies and a revision of landscape theory in
archaeology we will be able to overcome the limitations
faced by current approaches.

Making sense of Topographic Prominence

The following section, together with the rest of the
article, aims to alleviate one of the shortcomings
referred to earlier: the lack of formal methods found in
current archaeological accounts in which landscape
perception is a key element. This is done by means of a
GIS model.
The study of landscape aordances
The concept of aordances in relation to landscape
research has already been discussed in previous articles
(see Ingold, 1986; Llobera, 1996 and Webster, 1999).
According to Gibson (1986: 127) The aordances of
the environment are what it oers the animal, what it
provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb
to aord is found in the dictionary, but the noun
aordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it
something that refers to both the environment and the
animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies
the complementarity of the animal and the environment . . . It is beyond the scope of this paper to review
Gibsons work and its implications in any detail (see
Gordon, 1989). The significance of Gibsons work
within this context resides in its potentially phenomenological interpretation, though this has yet to be
formally addressed, and the systematic exposition of
his ideas (later concepts being built upon previous
ones).

Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS 1007

In a recent article, Webster emphasizes the individual and internal character of aordances, and sheds
some doubts on its usefulness as a concept within a
social research framework. This follows a previous
publication by Llobera (1996), in which the concept of
aordance was united with that of habitus and structures. Thus, changes in detected aordances are seen to
reflect social changes. Webster claims on the individual
character of aordances does not necessarily stand
opposed to the general sense attributed to habitus or
structures, which are socially shaped but individually
experienced. Similarly, his comments on the semantic
understanding of the term aordance, whether it represents a range of possible perceptions or a single
concrete one, and whether it is interpreted as singular
or plural, is somewhat a matter of interpretation
given that aordance was a made-up term. However,
Websters allegations on the necessity of exploring
aordances for various individuals, with dierent
physical characteristics and cultural backgrounds, are
totally valid. This would ideally require not only a
model of the environment but also of the agent, a
project that this author hopes to develop soon. What is
sought here is the integration of aordance as an
analytical element within a social framework.*
A GIS is used to define and explore via a simple
example a particular landscape aordance; i.e. topographic prominence, as a possible element in the socialization process (see Llobera, 1996). Here, socialization
is understood as the process by which an individual
becomes an integral member of society (part of a social
group). It is intimately related to social production and
reproduction (in this case, society as a whole is the focus
of study). More specifically, it refers to the process by
which an individual, through his/her actions, is constantly reproducing the structuring components
inherent in his/her social group (such as dierences in
gender and labour, or power relations), and producing
and/or modifying others. Focusing on aordances can
help us to detect and describe perceptual changes that
occurred within a particular landscape over time. Thus,
the study of aordances stands at the crossroads
among the notion of landscape (as described by Ingold,
1993), the study of social processes and the application
of GIS.
The prominence felt at a location has often provided a way to address issues about hierarchy, rank
and significance within a landscape. In a sense, it is
connected to the symbolism associated with the vertical scale and the fact that prominent locations are
related to visual and physical control (Higuchi, 1989)
which may contribute eventually towards their symbolic significance. They are often used as landmarks
and serve to anchor space around them (Lynch,
1960).
*Gibson was an experimental psychologist rather than a social one,
see Noble (1981) and Reed (1987) for some discussions into the
social aspects of Gibsons theories.

Figure 1. Change of topographic prominence with scale.

Defining topographic prominence

Topographic Prominence is here described as a function of height dierential between an individual and
his/her surroundings as apprehended from the individuals point of view. More precisely, it is defined as
the percentage of locations that lie below the individuals location (terrain altitude plus individuals height)
within a certain radius. Such a definition contrasts with
other possible ones that could be based on visual
aspects of the terrain (e.g. how visible and its shape).
The definition provided is, on purpose, a relative one
i.e. prominence is defined in relation to a radius, as
Figure 1 shows.
This cross-section shows how the topographic
prominence calculated for a small neighbourhood
(radius R1) around the individual standing would be
relatively higher than the one obtained for a larger
neighbourhood (radius R2) as it includes higher
ground. This emphasizes the importance of exploring
aordances and for various scales.
Case Study. An area in the Yorkshire Wolds (see
Figure 2) is used as a case study. It is an area for which
archaeological and environmental data is quite limited.
The intention in this article, however, is not to produce
a definite understanding of the archaeology of this
region but to use the information so far available
(locational) to illustrate the potential of the methodology currently being developed. The distribution of
archaeological material is shown in Figure 3, and
includes 163 Late NeolithicEarly Bronze Age (BA)
round barrows (c. 25001400 ), Late Bronze Age
(LBA) linear ditches material (c. 1300600 ) and 191
Iron Age (IA) square barrows (c. 600 1st C. )
recovered after a comprehensive aerial survey of the
area (see Stoertz, 1997). Except for field systems (generally attached to extant linear ditches), these elements
represent the most characteristic landscape features for
each period. The limitations and techniques employed
for this survey have been described elsewhere (ibid.),
The advantage of using the previous definition is the speed and
simplicity of the computation, however, the main drawback is the
lack of sensibility of the model i.e. in recognising morphological
aspects of the terrain.

1008 M. Llobera
Prominence (r = 150 m)

Metres
Grid

0%

50%

100%

North
1000.00

Prominence

Figure 4. Topographic prominence within 150 m.

Figure 2. Location of study area (after Stoertz, 1997).

Distribution of archaeological
landscape features
3881 m
82114 m
115151 m
152219 m
BA Round Barrow
IA Square Barrow
LBA Linear Ditch

clearances during the Bronze Age (Thomas, 1989). In

the Wolds, vegetation clearance may have occurred as
early as the Mesolithic period (Bush, 1988, 1989;
Thomas, 1989) but evidence is still very scanty. At the
end of the Neolithic and beginning of the Bronze Age
there is evidence that extensive tracts of grassland must
have existed, as indicated by the extensive use of turf
and soil in barrow ditches but their distribution is still
unknown. This would have been comparable to nearby
areas (e.g. North York Moors) which suered their
first major impact on woodland (Spratt, 1993). Some
of this information comes from peat and lake deposits
and pre-barrow soils (Manby, 1980: 313). However,
there still seem to have been some areas with extensive
woodland, as deduced from the construction of
Thwing in the Late Bronze Age. By Early Iron Age,
impact on the vegetation and soil would have been
most significant as the result of many of the long-term
clearances initiated during previous periods that never
were reversed (Stoertz, 1997).

Results
Metres
Grid

North
1000.00

Figure 3. Archaeology in study area.

and while a lot of excavation and survey needs still to

be undertaken, the Wolds oers a very high survival
rate and excellent conditions for photographic
recovery (Stoertz 1997:11).
Limited information about the environment is available for the Wolds. In general, chalkland environments
are thought to have been mostly wooded during the
Mesolithic, which was then followed by some variable
clearance in the Neolithic, ending up with permanent

Samples of the topographic prominence for two radii

are shown in Figures 45. The values within these
images are percentages. Values of less than 50% are
associated with locations found in pits or channels
while locations with a 50% or more are usually part of
ridges and peaks. The significance of these images
needs to be emphasized. Their appearance is clearly
two-dimensional but they describe the distribution of a
landscape characteristic that is three-dimensional and
which can only be apprehended locally, i.e. perceived
as if an agent was situated at each location. The
histograms (Figures 610) summarize and compare
the topographic prominence for the entire landscape
and the dierent archaeological landscape features,
throughout various radii.

Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS 1009

Prominence (r = 510 m)

Prominence (r = 150 m)
Percentage (%)

50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

010% 10
20%

20
30%

30
40%

40
50%

50
60%

60
70%

70
80%

80
90
90% 100%

Prominence
Background (entire study area)

BA Round Barrows

LBA Linear Ditches

IA Square Barrows

Figure 8. Topographic prominence within 150 m.

Metres
Grid

North

0%

1000.00

50%

100%

Prominence

Prominence (r = 330 m)

Figure 5. Topographical prominence within 510 m.

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

Prominence (r = 30 m)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
010% 10
20%

20
30%

30
40%

40
50%

50
60%

60
70%

70
80%

80
90
90% 100%

Prominence
010% 10
20%

20
30%

30
40%

40
50%

50
60%

60
70%

70
80%

80
90
90% 100%

Background (entire study area)

BA Round Barrows

LBA Linear Ditches

IA Square Barrows

Figure 6. Topographic prominence within 30 m.

Prominence (r = 90 m)
50.00
Percentage (%)

25.00

0.00

Prominence

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

30.00

010% 10
20%

20
30%

30
40%

40
50%

50
60%

60
70%

70
80%

80
90
90% 100%

Prominence
Background (entire study area)

BA Round Barrows

LBA Linear Ditches

IA Square Barrows

Figure 7. Topographic prominence within 90 m.

For a radius of 30 m, the results are not very

conclusive, as a result of the nature of the landscape, a
chalk environment characterized by smooth rolling

Background (entire study area)

BA Round Barrows

LBA Linear Ditches

IA Square Barrows

Figure 9. Topographic prominence within 330 m.

hills, and the sensitivity of the model. Except for the

mild prominence of round barrows, variability of topographic prominence is very limited; most of the prominence is concentrated around the 4050% category or
bin. For a radius of 90 m, the proportion of round
barrows increases in more prominent locations,
while linear ditches and IA square barrows appear
concentrated in less prominent ones. Some percentage
(around 40%) of the latter, show some concentration in
within middle-upper prominent locations.
At a radius of 150 m, larger numbers of levels of
prominence are starting to emerge. Round barrows
appear clearly to concentrate in locations with higher
prominence levels, while linear ditches remain in less
prominent locations. Square barrows, however, seem a
bit chaotic. They appear to be concentrated in less
prominent locations (less than 30%) their number
dropping in middle prominent locations, only to rise in
middle-high locations (6070%) and finally, to drop
again.
At a radius of 330 m, round barrows are concentrated on medium to high prominence values (50%
upwards). This is particularly significant especially

1010 M. Llobera
Prominence (r = 510 m)

(a) Increasing

(b) Decreasing

15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00

010% 10
20%

20
30%

30
40%

40
50%

50
60%

60
70%

70
80%

80
90
90% 100%

Prominence

20.00

Prominence

Percentage (%)

25.00

Radii

Radii

Prominence

LBA Linear Ditches

IA Square Barrows

Figure 10. Topographic prominence within 510 m.

when compared against the lower percentages found

for the study area. The concentration of linear ditches
is higher between 4070% although this concentration
is below the backgrounds. Square barrows presents
a bimodal distribution with one peak at 1020%
prominence and another at 5060%.
The final histogram (r=510 m), clearly points out
several aspects: For example that topographic prominence within this landscape can only be distinguished
for larger blocks of terrain. BA round barrows
were targeting high prominence locations (60100%).
LBA linear ditches were built on less prominent land
with some of them in higher prominence locations
(7080%). This pattern is somewhat shared by IA
square barrows with a majority located in low prominence positions (040%) and a few situated on higher
prominent ground (7080%).
The above results provide a scale-by-scale sense of
the variability of topographic prominence for the entire
landscape and monuments. An interesting methodological aspect that appears from this treatment of the
topography is the variety of ways in which it allows us
to explore the cultural landscape. On the one hand, we
can determine at which scale it is possible to talk about
prominence. The appearance of this quality, is due
primarily to the geology of the terrain. The Wolds as a
chalklands is characterized by large rolling hills, thus it
is only when we consider large blocks of terrain, i.e.
larger radii, that dierent levels of prominence emerge.
We could also compare how this characteristic relates
to the nature of the monument or cluster monuments
according to their prominence.
The next section explores how this quality of the
landscape interacted with these features and provided a
particular experience of landscape as individuals
moved in relation to them. This experience would have
been used to reinforce and create certain ways of life,
by ordering encounters, sights and feelings. It is at this
level that GIS can be used to provide expression of an
experiential aspect that up to now would have only
been discussed at a theoretical level.

(c) Stable

(d) Oscillatory

Prominence

BA Round Barrows
Prominence

Background (entire study area)

Radii

Radii

Figure 11. Types of topographic prominence behaviour.

The behaviour of the topographic prominence at

any location changes from one radius to another.
Adopting a very simplistic approach, it is possible to
distinguish theoretically four dierent behaviours at
any one location (Figure 11).
Each of the xy-plots shows how the level of prominence changes as the radius of search changes. In
Figure 11(a) the prominence level increases the larger
the radius; the same graph can also be interpreted by
saying that the further away from the location the
higher the prominence level. Conversely the closer to
the location the smaller its prominence becomes.
A similar interpretation follows for the rest of the
plots. As mentioned, for the sake of simplicity,
changes of topographic prominence (dprom) in relation
to the radii (dr) will be considered here as being
linear (1),

The linearity assumption is a gross oversimplification but it allows us to fit a regression line (y=mx+n),
using map algebra, that describes the change of
topographic prominence in relation to the radii. The
slope of this line, whether positive, negative or close
to zero, can be used as an overall indicator of the
behaviour (change) of topographic prominence at a
location.
Figure 12 describes the behaviour of topographic
prominence for the entire study area, by displaying the
slope values (m) of the regression line for each location.
If necessary, the degree of reliability of this image
could be described by displaying the sum of the
residuals for each location (not shown here). This

Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS 1011

Topographic Prominence Behaviour

Experience of Topographic
Prominence
1. Low Prom. Increase Close
2. Low Prom. Stable
3. Low Prom. Increase Away
4. Med. Prom. Increase Close
5. Med. Prom. Stable
6. Med. Prom. Increase Away
7. High Prom. Increase Close
8. High Prom. Stable
9. High Prom. Increase Away
BA Round Barrow
IA Square Barrow
LBA Linear Ditch

Grid

North

Metres Increasing (+)

1000.00

Away

Stable

Increasing ()

Closer

Figure 12. Behaviour of topographic prominence.

Metres
Grid

North
1000.00

image can then be reclassified into three categories:

stable (1 ..) corresponding to locations for
which the level of prominence remains similar,* increase close (<
1 ..) for locations with a decreasing level of prominence the larger the radii, and
increase away (> +1 ..) for locations with an
increasing level of prominence as the radii increase, i.e.
as one moves further away.
We can obtain a mean topographic prominence
image, not shown here, by adding together each of the
topographic prominence images (like Figures 4 & 5)
from which the histograms were derived and dividing
by the total number of images. This image can then be
reclassified into either low (<25%), medium (25% mean
prominence c75%) or high (>75%) and combined
with Figure 12. During this operation the category of
one image, say mean prominence low, is combined,
with each category of the other images, in this case:
stable, increase close, increase away, in order to
create new categories, i.e. low prominence/stable, low
prominence/increase close, low prominence/increase
away (see crosstabulation in Eastman, 1997). The
result is an image with nine categories, made up of
three prominence levels times three prominence behaviours. The amount of information condensed into the
resultant image is considerable, thus only a section of
the entire image is included here (Figure 13). Further
insight into the archaeological monuments could be
obtained by combining this information i.e. topographic prominence change, with information about
their architecture and other archaeological remains.
Questions could then be asked such as; which features
maintain their prominence throughout the landscape?
is their any significant correlation with their size or any
other characteristics such as particular archaeological
*In this case, it may also include the oscillatory case, see Figure
11(d).

Figure 13. Experience of topographic experience.

finds or mode of deposition (in the case of burials)? It

may then be possible to say which types of action were
used to establish certain type of landmarks. This image
could also be used to describe whether certain features
were meant to be experienced from afar, or could only
be appreciated through a close encounter. The possibilities are many and would require a comprehensive
review of the material associated with each feature as
well as their chronology.

Discussion
Table 1 summarizes the results obtained for the entire
background and the archaeology. The high prominence of many BA round barrows (4554%) would
have been experienced from afar; some authors (e.g.
Barrett et al., 1994) have already suggested that their
tops could have acted as platforms for dierent rites. A
few of them (673%) would have remained prominent
throughout the landscape but without some marking,
they may have been indistinguishable from the topography (726%). A significant number of round barrows (around 40%) were located in medium prominent
locations. As expected, very few of them (around 8%)
would have been encountered at close range. It is only
within this category (low prominence) that some of
them would have stood out as the individual got
closer to them. All of these patterns indicate that
round barrows might have been an eective means of
delimiting a territory. Their marking would have
been highly informative, close to 90% are located in
high-medium prominent locations. This conclusion

1012 M. Llobera
Table 1. Experience of topographic prominence

Low prominence. Increase close

Low prominence. Stable
Low prominence. Increase away
Med. prominence. Increase close
Med. prominence. Stable
Med. prominence. Increase away
High prominence. Increase close
High prominence. Stable
High prominence. Increase away

Background
% (entire
study area)

BA Round
barrows %

LBA Linear
ditches %

IA Square
barrows %

1269
987
007
158
4694
456
004
726
1699

420
420
000
168
3109
756
000
673
4454

1963
1133
000
036
3809
725
000
542
1792

3067
1166
000
307
2454
736
000
736
1534

has already been mentioned by several authors (e.g.

Manby, 1980). It is further corroborated here and
extended (see below).
The LBA linear ditches also oer a variety of
combinations. Some (1792%) are only prominent the
further away an individual gets from them. Within this
group, a small number (542%) maintains its prominence unchanged throughout the landscape. A large
proportion (c. 46%) is sited on locations of medium
prominence, where most would always have been
present while a few would only have emerged at a
distance. Finally, a substantial proportion (about 30%)
cut through low prominent ground and many of these
increase in prominence the closer the individual got to
them (20%). Comparing these patterns with those
found for the BA round barrows, they suggest a
territorial system that was still highly informative
(around 70%, in highmedium prominent locations)
but that also incorporated an emerging pattern;
nearly 31% would have only been encountered at close
range.
The presence of IA square barrows in the landscape
is much more complex than that associated with previous features. Though a large percentage appear in
prominent locations (23%), there seems to have been
a shift in emphasis in comparison with previous time
periods; the proportion of square barrows in highly
prominent stable locations is larger than for monuments of previous time periods while the proportion of
those increasing their prominence with distance is
slightly smaller than for the linear ditches. This could
be interpreted as an increasing sense of permanence, as
opposed to movement (whether approaching or receding from the feature). This characteristic however,
disappears when square barrows of medium prominence are examined. The largest number of square
barrows is found in low prominent locations (around
42%), the majority of which (3067%) would have
emerged as the gap between them and the individual
shortened. This is not surprising for it is unlikely that
their significance as landscape features was the same as
that of round barrows. Burial sites during the IA were
not deployed as territorial markers. They are mainly

found within, or near, a domestic context (near field

systems).
Several comments can be made after examining
the interaction between the dierent archaeological
features and topographic prominence. Firstly, with
respect to their change in prominence, round barrows
and linear ditches are likely to be associated with
movement through and across large-medium sized
territories corroborating what is known so far for these
periods. This is mainly because their significance would
have been reduced at a closer distance. The areas of the
Wolds on which they are located did not aord prominence at a short range. This orientation changes in the
Iron Age where movement seems to be movement into,
and within smaller areas. This finding cannot be attributed only to the square barrows being located in
lowland areas. By reclassifying each of the previous
prominence images, so that those locations with
a 50% prominence or above are given a value of 1 and
the rest (less than 50%) a value of 0, and adding them
together we get a new image (not shown here) that
describes dierent levels of local uplands/lowlands.
Table 2, shows that a very large percentage (48%) of
square barrows are located in high grounds locally.
Thus, on the basis of their prominence, the sense
attached to square barrows was one of intended approximation. Secondly, during each time period, one of
the extremes of topographic prominence was favoured
above all others. This extreme ranged from high prominent location in the BA, to low prominence in the IA
(a slightly more balanced distribution is found during
the LBA). However, it is interesting to note that for the
IA, this stress is not as marked possibly because the
connection between the natural landscape was weaker
than during previous time periods. It is likely that
reference was made more to man-made features such
as field systems.

Conclusion
The development of methodologies aimed to capture
the subtleties inherent in current accounts promises to

Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS 1013

Table 2. Percentage of LOCAL upland and lowland

Lowland (1)
2
3
4
5
6
7
Upland (8)

Background
(entire study
area) (%)

BA Round
barrows
(%)

LBA Linear
ditches (%)

IA Square
barrows
(%)

2824
484
462
653
594
533
836
3615

1176
168
421
672
421
504
1008
5630

3786
505
366
564
402
352
546
3479

3497
798
368
613
491
613
1166
2454

be complicated and requires a type of investigation

only possible with a long-term project. We need to
deepen our understanding on how people interact
with the built environment and other material forms
before we can advance statements about how their
practical knowledge and perception (Giddens, 1984)
changed through time.. For that we require new
developments, at a theoretical and practical level, and
possibly the incorporation of disciplines that so far
have been little acknowledged in archaeology (e.g.
experimental and ecological psychology, landscape
and urban design, artificial intelligence). Many of
these provide tools and techniques from which others
can be built in order to understand social action
rather than imposing a behavioural model. Thus, they
can provide explanations and insights for precise
processes, which may then be incorporated into a
larger framework in order to construct powerful
arguments on human spatiality in a bottom-up
fashion.
Locational information, derived from an intensive
aerial survey (see Stoertz, 1997), of the archaeology of
the Yorkshire Wolds was used throughout this article.
Given current archaeological and environmental limitations, the aim was not to provide a comprehensive
understanding of this area (much work needs to be
done) but to use the available data to illustrate the
potential of GIS for retrieving information that could
not otherwise be systematically obtained and that,
eventually, may help support current landscape
narratives.
The article also shows the use of GIS as a tool
capable of deriving new information which in spite of
its map-like appearance goes far beyond what can be
represented and derived using traditional distribution
maps. That is the untapped power of GIS, as a tool to
visualize information that is subtle and relational in
nature.
Finally, the model presented here, though simple,
hopes to have illustrated how changes in the process of
socialization may be detected by reference to landscape
aordances and explored by means of a GIS.

References
Barrett, J. C. (1994). Fragments from AntiquityAn Archaeology of
Social Life in Britain, 29001200 . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. & Tilley, C. (1997). Leskernick: stone
worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 63, 147178.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. (1991). Rock art and the perception of landscape.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 1, 77101.
Bush, M. B. (1988). Early Mesolithic disturbance: a force on the
landscape. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15, 45362.
Eastman, J. R. (1997). Idrisi for Windows, Version 2.0.
Fleming, A. (1999). Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a
dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18, 11927.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Gordon, I. E. (1989). Theories of Visual Perception. Chichester:
Wiley & Sons.
Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. (1999). The cultural biography of objects.
World Archaeology, 32.
Higuchi, T. (1989). The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes.
Mass. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hodder, I. (1999). The Archaeological Process: an Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwells.
Ingold, T. (1986). The Appropriation of NatureEssays on Human
Ecology and Social Relations. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25, 152174.
Llobera, M. (1996). Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social
space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70, 612622.
Llobera, M. (2000). Understanding Movement: a pilot study towards
the sociology of movement. In (G. Lock, Ed.) Beyond the Map.
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: Technology
Press.
Manby, T. G. (1980). Bronze Age settlement in Eastern Yorkshire.
In (J. Barrett & R. Bradley, Eds) Settlement and Society in the
British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Report,
83, pp. 307370.
Noble, W.G. (1981). Gibsonian theory and the Pragmatist perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 11, 6585.
Reed, E.S. (1987). James Gibsons ecological approach to cognition.
In (A. Costall & A. Still, Eds) Cognitive Psychology in Question.
Brighton: Harvester Press.

1014 M. Llobera
Spratt, D. A. (1993). Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of NorthEast Yorkshire. CBA Research Report 87. London: Council for
British Archaeology.
Stoertz, C. (1997). Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds: Aerial
Photographic Transcription Analysis. Royal Commission on
Historical Monuments England. Swindon: RCHME.
Tilley, C. (1994). The Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg.
Thomas, K. D. (1989). Vegetation of the British Chalklands in the
Flandrian period: a response to Bush. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 16, 549553.

Webster, D. S. (1999). The concept of aordance and GIS a note on

Llobera (1996). Antiquity, 73, 915917.
Zube, E. & Moore, G. (1987). Advances in Environment, Behavior and
Design (1). New York: Plenum Press.
Zube, E. & Moore, G. (1989). Advances in Environment, Behavior and
Design (2). New York: Plenum Press.