Abstract
Detecting association between archaeological sites and physical landscape elements like geological deposits, vegetation, drainage networks, or areas of modern disturbance like mines or quarries is a key goal of archaeological projects. This goal is complicated by the incomplete nature of the archaeological record, the high degree of uncertainty of typical point distribution patterns, and, in the case of deeply buried archaeological sites, the absence of reliable information about the ancient landscape itself. Standard statistical approaches may not be applicable (e.g., X2 test) or are difficult to apply correctly (regression analysis). Monte Carlo simulation, devised in the late 1940s by mathematical physicists, offers a way to approach this problem. In this paper, we apply a Monte Carlo approach to test for association between Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites in Hampshire and Sussex, UK, and quarries recorded on historical maps. We code our approach in the popular ‘R’ software environment, describing our methods step-by-step and providing complete scripts so others can apply our method to their own cases. Association between sites and quarries is clearly shown. We suggest ways to develop the approach further, e.g., for detecting associations between sites or artefacts and remotely-sensed deposits or features, e.g., from aerial photographs or geophysical survey.
Highlights
Associating archaeological sites with elements of the physical landscape are key goals of archaeological projects
A key problem relates to the incompleteness of the archaeological record as a result of differential survival or detection, so apparent associations with particular landscape types or features may not be what they seem—for example, sites discovered by aerial photography are often strongly biased towards geological deposits where cropmarks and soilmarks are most formed, which may not relate to the past human pattern of exploitation of the landscape
To apply the Monte Carlo approach described above to test the association of archaeological sites with particular landscape features or units, we need to answer two key questions: (1) How many archaeological sites would we expect to find per landscape unit, in the case that there is no association between the sites and the landscape element we wish to investigate? (2) Does our sample differ from such an expected distribution in a way that would lead us to conclude that our site is associated with or attracted to the landscape features of interest?
Summary
Associating archaeological sites with elements of the physical landscape (geological deposits, vegetation, drainage networks) are key goals of archaeological projects. This information is desirable for a variety of reasons, e.g., to understand the relationship of past human settlements to agricultural land in their territory (e.g., [1]), to trace patterns of hominid colonisation (e.g., [2]) or to identify key landforms or landscape types for future research or preservation from development (e.g., [3]). The absence of lasting structural remains throughout most of Prehistory means that locating traces of Prehistoric archaeology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
