Why do we Need Geoinformatics Specialists and How to Use them Correctly?

Keywords: database, interoperability, geospatial data, GIS, coordinate systems, archaeological research.

Abstract

Nowadays, technologies propose vast variety of different solutions to all stages of archaeological research. Geoinformatics, for instance, became the necessary part of archaeology since the end of the last century. Geoinformational provision of excavations and research, together with photogrammetry and geospatial database tools proved to be incredibly efficient. However, qualified scientific approach requires systematic use of all available instruments. In order to avoid the chaotic and random use of digital tools, an archaeologist should implement a complex approach to the geospatial provision of any research. It means qualified and rational use of geospatial database, geoinformational systems and photogrammetry from the very beginning of research — on the stage of planning. Only considering all the issues — from the coordinate system choose to the database management system structure — scientist can obtain a high quality of archaeological data that must be accurate, complete, interoperable, unified and precise. The advantages of geospatial databases for archaeological researches comparing to instrumental geoinformational system or analogue data sometimes are still the issue for discussion, so their usability must be considered and proved. Dynamic changeability, use of third dimension and fuzzy logic operators, interoperability, adaptation possibilities and a capacity to include the non-spatial data are the most important of them. Besides, use of database management systems, constraints, query procedures and spatial and conditional selections make databases extremely useful for the data mining, analysis and visualization. The complex, systematic and rational use of the entire geoinfomatics toolkit is strongly recommended to provide a concurrent and efficient archaeological research.

References

Akasheva, A. A. 2011. Prostranstvennyi analiz dannykh v istoricheskikh naukakh. Primenenie geoinformatsionnykh tekhnologii: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie. Nizhnii Novgorod: Nizhegorodskii universitet.
Babenko, M. Yu., Bohdanets, S. A. Kompiuterne tryvymirne modeliuvannia trypilskoho posudu. Arkheometriia ta okhorona istoryko-kulturnoi spadshchyny, 1, pp. 61-62.
Barcelo, J. A., Pallares, M. 1996. A critique of GIS in Archaeology. From Visual seduction to Spatial Analysis. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 6, pp. 313-326.
Bilynskyi, O. Yakhimovych, K. 2018. Hospodarstvo naselennia skifskoho chasu na Seimi za danymy heoinformatsiinoho vyvchennia pryrodnykh umov ta pamiatok. Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 1 (26), pp. 280-292.
Blankholm, H. P. 1991. Intrasite Spatial analysis in Theory and Practice. Arhus: Archus University Press.
Blokhin, V. G., Kuzmin, N. M., Pererva, E. V., Khokhlova, S. S., Shinkar, O. A. Geoinformatsionnye sistemy dlia podderzhki arkheologicheskikh dannykh. Vestnik VolGU, 8, pp. 141-146.
Bragin, P. N. 2010. Istoricheskie geoinformatsionnye sistemy: problemy razrabotki i ispolzovaniia razlichnykh istochnikov. Iaroslavlskij pedagogicheskii vestnik, t. III, 4, pp. 148-152.
Conolly, J., Lake, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daragan, M. N. 2015. Opyt 3D-modelirovania kurgannykh sooruzhenii epokhi Eneolita - rannei Bronzy. Virtualnaia arkheologia (effektivnost metodov). materialy Vtoroi Mezhdunar. konf. (1-3 iyunia 2015, Gos. Ermitazh, S.-Peterburg, RF). SPb.: Izd-vo Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 127-138.
Diachenko, A. 2013. Settlement growth as a fractal. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 15, p. 88-105. https://doi:10.12766/jna.2013.7.
Diachenko, A., Menotti, F. 2015. Cucuteni-Tripolye contact networks: cultural transmission and chronology. In: Diachenko A., Menotti F., Ryzhov S., Bunyatyan K. and Kadrow S. (eds.), The Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex and its neighbours: Essays in memory of Volodymyr Kruts. Lviv: Astrolabe, pp. 131-152.
Goodchild, M., Haining, R., Wise S. 1992. Integrating GIS and spatial analysis: problems and possibilities. International journal of Geographical Informational Systems, vol. 6, 5, pp. 327-334.
Gregory, I., Ell, P. 2007. Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies and Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hernandez, D. 1994. Qualitative representation of Spatial Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hodder, I., Orton, C. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khoperskov, A. V., Andreeva, I. I., Khrapov, S. S., Pisarev, A. V., Gritskevich, M. V. 2015. Geoinformatsionnyi portal dlia podderzhki arkheologicheskikh i paleoantropologicheskikh issledovanii. Volgograd: Izdatelstvo Volgogradskogo universiteta.
Korobov, D. S. 2011. Osnovy geoinformatiki v arkheologii: uchebnoe posobie. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. gos. un-ta.
Nykonenko, D. D., Radchenko, S. B., Volkov, A. V. 2017. Vitovtova vezha za danymy suchasnykh fotohrammetrychnykh doslidzhen. Arhelogia, 4, pp. 120-129.
Nykonenko, D., Radchenko, S. 2019. 3D fotogrammetriia v arkheolohii: doslidzhennia Konsulivskoho postskifskoho horodyshcha. Pontica et Caucasica II. Mizhdyscyplinarni doslidzhennia starozytnostei Chornogo moria. Tezy mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii 14-17 travnia 2019 roku. Varshava, pp. 38-39.
Pavlu, I., Rulf, J., Zapotocka, M. 1995. Bylany rondel. Model of the Neolithic site. In: J. Fridrich (eds.) Praehistorica archaeologica Bohemica. Pamyatky archeologickй - supplementum 3, pp. 95-98.
Radchenko, S. 2017. Teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie aspekty kompleksnogo izuchenia arkheologicheskogo obekta s ispolzovaniem GIS. V: Radchenko, S., Kіosak, D. (red.) Liudyna ta ii slіd. Pryroda і komunіkatsіia. Do 50-rіchchia Oleha Valentynovycha Tuboltseva, pp. 167-185.
Radchenko, S., Kiosak, D. 2019. Tryvymirnyi svit arkheolohichnykh materialiv ta yak yoho sposterihaty? V: A. Korokhina (red.). Tezy mizhnarodnoi konferentsii molodykh vchenykh «To dig or not to dig: invazyvni ta neinvazyvni metody arkheolohii». 11-12 zhovtnia 2019 roku. Kyiv: IA NAN Ukrainy, pp. 17-21.
Read, D. W. 1989. Statistical Methods and Reasoning in Archaeological Research: A Review of Praxis and Promise. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 1, pp. 5-78.
Rendfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2005. Site catchment analysis. Archaeology: the key concepts, pp. 172-176.
Rossmann, D. L. 1976. A Site Catchment Analysis of San Lorenzo, Veracruz. In: K.V. Flannery (eds.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. NY: Academic Press, pp. 95-103.
Rud, V. S. 2015. Kartohrafuvannia pamiatok trypilskoi kultury Pivdenno-Skhidnoi Vinnychyny. Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 4 (17), pp. 134-139.
Scianna, A., Villa, B. 2011. GIS applications in archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 22, pp. 337-363.
Shakirov, Z. G. 2015. Metody fiksatsii v arkheologii. Kazan.
Sherstiuk, V. V. 2015. Virtualni arkheolohichni rozvidky. Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 4 (17), pp. 148-154.
Tuboltsev, O., Radchenko, S. 2019. Causewayed enclosures in Ukraine? A new look at an Early Bronze Age site in the Ukrainian Steppe. Antiquity, 93 (369), E18. https://doi:10.15184/aqy.2019.53.
Vladimirov, V. N. 2005. Istoricheskaia geoinformatika: geoinformatsionnye sistemy v istoricheskikh issledovaniakh. Barnaul: Izdatelstvo Altaiskogo universiteta.
Zhyhola, V. S., Skorokhod, V. M. 2019. Novitni metody fiksatsii v arkheolohii. Arheologia, 1, pp. 118-130. https://doi:10.15407/archaeologyua2019.01.118
Zotsenko, I. Borysov, A., Manihda, O. 2019. Hrupa arkheolohichnykh heoinformatsiinykh doslidzhen. Vystup na mizhnarodnii konferentsii molodykh vchenykh «To dig or not to dig: invazyvni ta neinvazyvni metody arkheolohii». 11-12 zhovtnia 2019 roku. Kyiv: IA NAN Ukrainy.

Abstract views: 43
PDF Downloads: 45
Published
2019-12-26
Section
Articles