Geographic Information Systems

  • Ian Roderick Mather
  • Gordon P. WattsJr.
Part of the The Springer Series in Underwater Archaeology book series (SSUA)

Abstract

Spatial relationships between artifacts, features, and sites are at the heart of archaeology. The traditional way archaeologists recover, represent, and store spatially referenced data is through analog (printed) maps and site plans, which use lines, polygons, points, color, shading patterns, symbols, scale, and a key to preserve and present the information. In essence, the map and its key form a spatially related database. Although a resourceful investigator can present a variety of thematic maps, scatter plots, and site plans in this way, the archaeologist’s analog chart has intrinsic limitations. Invariably, archaeological data must be generalized to prevent the map from becoming cluttered and incomprehensible. Limitations of space and clarity mean that analog maps must display only a minute fraction of the available data. Underwater archaeologists work in a new and nascent discipline, but the volume and variety of professionally produced, spatially referenced data is already difficult to calculate.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Archaeological Site United States Geological Survey Cultural Resource Differential Global Position System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, Kathleen M.S., Green, Stanton W., and Zubrow, Ezra B.W. 1990, Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  2. Arnoff, S., 1989, Geographic Information Systems: A management perspective. WDL Publications, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  3. Caswell, D.A., 1992, GIS: The Big Picture in Underwater Search Operations. Sea Technology 33(2):40–47.Google Scholar
  4. Coppock, J., and Rhind, D., 1991, The History of GIS. In Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, edited by D. Maguire, M. Goodchild, and D. Rhind, pp. 21–43. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Dzurenko, Stephen Michael Jr., 1997, Development of a Real-Time Geographic Information System Toolbox for Oceanographic Survey Data Acquisition, Monitoring and Processing. M.S. thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.Google Scholar
  6. Errante, James, 1993, Waterscape Archaeology: Recognizing the Archaeological Potential of the Plantation Waterfront. In Historic Landscapes in South Carolina: Historical Archaeological Perspectives of the Land and Its People, edited by Linda F. Stine, Lesley M. Drucker, Martha Zierdan, and Christopher Judge, pp. 56–60. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists.Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson, Leland G., and Babson, David, 1986, Survey of Plantation Sites along the East Branch of Cooper River: A Model for Predicting Archaeological Site Location. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
  8. Hartley, Michael O., 1984, The Ashley River: A Survey of Seventeenth Century Sites. Research Manuscript Series 192, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.Google Scholar
  9. Marble, D., 1990, The Potential Methodological Impact of GIS on the Social Sciences. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by Kathleen M.S. Allen, Stanton W. Green, and Ezra B.W. Zubrow, pp. 9–21. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  10. Maschner, Herbert D.G., editor, 1996, New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  11. Mather, Ian Roderick, and Watts Jr., Gordon P., 1998, Geographic Information Systems for Cultural Resource Management and Site Specific Investigations. In Underwater Archaeology 1998, edited by Lawrence Babits, pp. 3–12. Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson.Google Scholar
  12. Murphy, Larry, 1996, Shipwrecks, Satellites, Computers: An Underwater Inventory of Our National Parks. Common Ground, 1(3/4):47–51.Google Scholar
  13. South, Stanley, and Michael Hartley, 1980, Deep Water and High Ground: Seventeenth Century Low County Settlement. South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Columbia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Roderick Mather
    • 1
  • Gordon P. WattsJr.
    • 2
  1. 1.Maritime History and Underwater Archaeology, Department of HistoryUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for International Maritime Research, Inc.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations