posted on 2017-05-12, 10:35authored byMark Gillings
Since the widespread adoption of GIS by archaeologists in the early 1990s, analyses of visibility have
steadily gained traction, becoming commonplace in landscape and regional analysis. This is in large
part due to the routine way in which such products can be generated, bolstered by a raft of
landscape-based studies that have placed varying degrees of emphasis upon human perception and
direct bodily engagement in seeking to understand and explore the past. Despite this seeming
popularity, two worrying trends stand out. The first is the lack of any coherent theoretical
framework, applications preferring instead to seek justification in the very first wave of experiential
landscape approaches that emerged in the early 1990s. Needless to say, the intervening 20 or so
years have seen considerable development in the conceptual tools we draw upon in order to make
sense of past landscapes, not to mention considerable finessing of the first-wave developments
alluded to above. Second is the tendency to relegate viewshed analysis to certain types of
predictable problem or question (i.e. viewshed analysis has become typecast). These trends have
been compounded by a host of other issues. For example, whilst there have been refinements,
tweaks and variations to the basic viewshed (and the frequency with which they are generated and
combined), not to mention establishment of robust calibration criteria for controlling them and
statistical approaches for assessing the patterns tendered, these have yet to be brought together in
any coherent fashion and their veracity critically assessed. Likewise, a failure to establish an agreed
vocabulary has resulted in a number of proverbial wheels being reinvented time and again. The
argument presented here is that viewsheds have considerably more to offer archaeology but to
realise this entails confronting these issues head on. That this is possible and desirable is illustrated
through discussion of a new theoretical framework for visibility-studies that draws upon
developments in assemblage theory and the author’s own work on affordance and relationality. To
demonstrate the value of this approach in encouraging different ways of thinking about what
viewsheds are and how we might begin to draw creatively upon them, a case-study is described
where viewsheds are folded into a detailed exploration of landscape liminality.
History
Citation
Journal of Archaeological Science, 2017
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES/School of Archaeology and Ancient History/Core Staff
Version
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Published in
Journal of Archaeological Science
Publisher
Elsevier, Association for Environmental Archaeology
The file associated with this record is under embargo until 12 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.