1

Contents

Chapter (1) introduction to GIS

What is GIS………………………………..……….…. (6)
HOW dose GIS work…………………….………..…. (7)
Purpose of GIS…………………………….…….….... (10)
Application of GIS………………………..………….... (10)
Chapter (2) GIS & Archaeology
GIS in survey ……………………………….………… (14)
Different processes and GIS………………………….…. (15)
Archaeological uses of GIS………………….………..… (16)
Archaeological method………………………….……..... (17)
Chapter (3) Case studies
Introduction in archaeology and GIS…………………… (20)
Settlement Patterns and Environmental Probability
Models……………………..…………………...… (21)
Making the probability models………………….... (22)
What the probability models mean…………….…. (25)
Erosion models and Iron Age agricultural…..……. (26)
Constructing the Components of the Erosion Mod. (26)
Surface Erosion and Intensification…..………….. (30)
Erosion Model Summary. ………….………….… (31)
Making the Models…..………………………….... (33)
Chapter(4) Conclusion
Conclusion…….…………………..……………… (37)
Chapter (5) References Cited
References………………………………….….. (41)

2
 hapterC (1)
Introduction to GIS
?What is GIS

Geographic information system

Is a computer system for managing spatial data The

word geographic implies location of the data items
are know or can be calculated in items of geographic
coordinates(latitude , longitude). Most GIS are
restricted to data in two spatial dimensions
The word information implies that the data in GIS are
organized to yield useful knowledge, often as colored
map and images, but also as statistical graphic, tables
and various on-screen responses to interactive
queries.
The word system implies that a GIS made up from
several interrelated and linked components with
different function.

A GIS is a computer system capable of capturing,

storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically
referenced information; that is, data identified
according to location. Practitioners also define a GIS
as including the procedures, operating personnel, and
spatial data that go into the system

3
 ?How does GIS work

The power of a GIS comes from the ability to relate different

information in a spatial context and to reach a conclusion about
this relationship. Most of the information we have about our
world contains a location reference, placing that information at
some point on the globe. When rainfall information is collected,
it is important to know where the rainfall is located. This is done
by using a location reference system, such as longitude and
latitude, and perhaps elevation. Comparing the rainfall
information with other information, such as the location of
marshes across the landscape, may show that certain marshes
receive little rainfall. This fact may indicate that these marshes
are likely to dry up, and this inference can help us make the
most appropriate decisions about how humans should interact
with the marsh. A GIS, therefore, can reveal important new
.information that leads to better decision making
Many computer databases that can be directly entered into a
GIS are being produced by Federal, State, tribal, and local
governments, private companies, academia, and nonprofit
organizations. Different kinds of data in map form can be
entered into a GIS (Figs. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, and 2). A GIS
can also convert existing digital information, which may not yet
be in map form, into forms it can recognize and use. For
example, digital satellite images can be analyzed to produce a
map of digital information about land use and land cover (Figs .
3 and 4). Likewise, census or hydrologic tabular data
can be converted to a map like form and serve as layers
of thematic information in a GIS (figs.3)

4
 Figure.2 showing GIS map
Fig.1 showing GIS map

Figure .3 showing GIS map

Figure.4 showing GIS map

Figure.5 showing GIS

Figure .6 map
showing GIS map

5
 1 Figure

Figure .7 showing GIS map

Figure .8 showing map

Figure.9 showing

Figure .10
Data integration is the linking of information in different forms through a
.GIS

6
 Purpose of GIS

The purpose of GIS is provide support for making

decision based on spatial data , as illustrated by a
few geological examples , the exploration manager
may use GIS to assemble data in the form of a
mineral potential map to decide priorities for future
exploration ; the mining geologist may evaluate
the effects of acid mine drainage with GIS to
decide the kinds of remediation that would be cost-
effective; the engineering geologist may evaluate
slop stability condition with GIS to decide the best
route for a new road , sometimes the purpose of
using GIS is to support general research

Application of GIS
Achieves these major goals through one or
more of the following activities with
.spatial data
organization\1
visualization\2
combination \3
analysis\4
prediction\5

7
 Organization-1
Anyone who has collected a large mass of data for a
particular purpose knows the importance of data
. organization
Data can be arranged in many different ways, and
unless the organization scheme is suitable for the
application at hand useful information cannot be easily
extracted .scheme for organizations data are call
.sometimes data models
The principal for analyzing GIS data is spatial location of
sample, the interpretation of spatial patterns and
relationships with other spatial data such as rock type
GIS data are also organize according to non-spatial
characteristics for example the interpretation of
geochemical data may depend on recognizing spatial of
elements ratio or group of observation based on the
.method of analysis or the year of collection

Visualization-2
The graphical capabilities of computer are exploited by GIS for
visualization, visual display is normally carried out using the
video monitor, but other output devices such as color printers
are used for hardcopy display, humans have an extraordinary
ability to understand complex spatial relationships visually
whereas the information may be quite unintelligible when
.presented as table of number

For example given table of geochemical analyses a geologist is

normally unable to recognize the spatial distribution of highs
and lows in the data, but the same table is converted to map
. display

8
 Combination-3
One of powerful features GIS is the ability to link several
map algebra statement together to form more complex
algorithms, several maps and table of attribute data can
be combined in a single processing step The process of
combining maps together is often mapped or cartographic
. Modeling

Analysis -4
Analysis is the process of inferring meaning from data,
analysis is often carried out visually in GIS ,as already
indicated ,analysis in GIS can be also be carried out by
measurements ,statistical computations , fitting models
.to data values and other operation

Prediction -5
The purpose of GIS study is often for prediction , for
example a number of data layers indicative of gold
deposits might be combined together to predict the
favorability for gold as new map ,such map may then be
used as basis for making exploration decision the
purpose might be using the results for choosing
.building sites or planning road construction

9
 Chapter (2)
GISand
GIS & Archaeology
Archeology

10
Geographic information systems GIS:- applications
are viewed with increasing interest by the archaeology
community and this book, with its diversity of topics and
authorship should be a useful resource. Complementing
the volume "Interpreting Space" Taylor & Francis, 1990,
which focused on North American archaeology, this title
further develops themes within a specifically - though
not exclusively - European context.; It is apparent that
there are fundamental differences between North
. American and European
GIS in survey
Survey and documentation are important to preservation
and archaeology, and GIS makes this research and
fieldwork efficient and precise. Research done using
GIS capabilities is used as a decision making tool to
prevent loss of relevant information that could impact
archaeological sites and studies. It is a significant tool
that contributes to regional planning and for cultural
resource management to protect resources that are
valuable through the acquisition and maintenance of
.data about historical sites
In archaeology, GIS increases the ability to map and
record data when it is used directly at the excavation

11
site. This allows for immediate access to the data
collected for analysis and visualization as an isolated
study or it can be incorporated with other relevant data
sources to help understand the site and its findings
.better
The ability of GIS to model and predict likely
archaeological sites is used by companies that are
involved with utilizing vast tracts of land resources like
the Department of Transportation. Section 106 of the
National Preservation Act specifically requires
historical sites as well as others to be assessed for
impact through federally funded projects. Using GIS to
assess archaeological sites that may exist or be of
importance can be identified through predictive
modeling. These studies and results are then used by the
management to make relevant decisions and plan for
future development. GIS makes this process less time
.consuming and more precise
There are different processes and GIS functionalities
that are used in archaeological research. Intrasite spatial
analysis or distributional analysis of the information on
the site helps in understanding the formation, process of
change and in documentation of the site. This leads to
research, analysis and conclusions. The old methods
utilized for this provide limited exposure to the site and
provide only a small picture of patterns over broad
spaces. Predictive modeling is used through data
acquisition like that of hydrography and hypsography to
develop models along with archaeological data for
better analysis. Point data in GIS is used to focus on

12
point locations and to analyze trends in data sets or to
interpolate scattered points. Density mapping is done
for the analysis of location trends and interpolation is
done to aid surface findings through the creation of
surfaces through point data and is used to find occupied
levels in a site. Aerial data is more commonly used. It
focuses on the landscape and the region and helps
interpret archaeological sites in their context and
settings. Aerial data is analyzed through predictive
modeling which is used to predict location of sites and
material in a region. It is based on the available
knowledge, method of prediction and on the actual
results. This is used primarily in cultural resource
.management

Archaeological uses of GIS. Primarily these differences

lie in the types of evidence for past landscapes that are
available for study in the two continents, and secondly
in the different approaches to archaeology and
specifically the theory and practice of landscape
archaeology. This title centers on the role of
archaeological theory in cultural resource management
CRM and in GIS applications generally. It showcases
the important debate which takes the emphasis away
from the technology of GIS and places it back . Within
the central concerns of archaeology and particularly
European archaeology. "Archaeology and GIS" includes
material on such concerns as CRM applications,
landscape archaeology, intra-site applications and

13
explicitly theoretical concerns, thus representing the
state of GIS applications in European archaeology.
Contributions come from countries such as France,
Italy, Hungary, UK, USA, the Netherlands, the Czech
.Republic, Spain, Slovenia and Finland

Although archaeologist using GIS technology at an

accelerating rate, publication of their work has not kept
pace. A state-of-the-art exploration the subject, GIS and
Archaeological Site Location Modeling pulls together
discussions of theory and methodology, scale, data,
quantitative methods, and cultural resource
management and uses location models and case studies
to illustrate these concepts. This book, written by a
distinguished group of international authors, reassesses
the practice of predictive modeling as it now exists and
examines how it has become useful in new ways. A
guide to spatial procedures used in archaeology, the
book provides a comprehensive treatment of predictive
modeling. It draws together theoretical models and case
studies and explains how modeling may be applied to
future projects. The book illustrates the various aspects
of academic and practical applications of predictive
modeling. It also discusses the need to assess the
reliability of the results and the implications of
reliability assessment on the further development of
predictive models. Of the books available on GIS, some
touch on archaeological applications but few cover the
topic in such depth. Both up to date and containing case

14
studies from a wide range of geographical locations
including Europe, the USA, and Australia, this book
.sets a baseline for future developments

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is a rapidly

developing archaeological method which is moving
from the domain of the computer specialist into that of
the broader archaeological community. This
comprehensive manual on the use of GIS in
archaeology explores the concept of GIS and illustrates
how it can be adapted for practical use. Examining
issues such as spatial databases, data acquisition, spatial
analysis, and techniques of visualization, the book is an
essential tool for both students and professional
.archaeologists

15
Chapter (3)
Case studies

16
Gary L. Christopher son, D. Phillip Guerin, Karen A. Boosted

GIS AND ARCHAEOLOGY: USING Arc

Info TO INCREASE OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF ANCIENT
JORDAN
Abstract

The utility of geographic information systems in the modern world is well known,
but their capabilities also make them ideal for analyses of ancient civilizations and
they are becoming common tools for archaeologists around the world. The country
of Jordan, with world famous archaeological sites such as Petra and Jerash, is
rich in antiquities, and as attention in the region turns from conflict to cooperation
the discovery and management of these cultural resources is becoming
increasingly important. The Madaba Plains Project has been involved in the
archaeology of Jordan since 1968, discovering hundreds of archaeological sites
during surveys of the Madaba region and conducting excavations at the sites of
Tell Hesban, Tell el-Umayri, and Tell Jalul. Since 1991, the Madaba Plains
Project, in cooperation with the Advanced Resource Technology Group and the
Near East Studies Department at the University of Arizona, has incorporated an
ArcInfo based GIS as an integral component of the project. This paper looks at the
ways this cooperative venture has used GIS to further archaeological research in
Jordan, including the construction of environmentally based site probability
models, the use of an erosion model to track the introduction of terrace agriculture
during the Iron Age, and spatial analysis of pottery sherds from the surface of an
excavation site.

17
 Introduction

The value of geographic information systems (GIS) in today's world is well known,
but their capabilities also make them ideal tools for the analysis of ancient
civilizations. Since 1991, the Madaba Plains Project, in cooperation with the
Advanced Resource Technology Group (ART) and the Near East Studies
Department at the University of Arizona, has used an ArcInfo based GIS for their
archaeological research in the country of Jordan. In many ways, Jordan is an
archaeologist's dream, with fantastic monuments, such as Petra, well preserved
Roman cities, like Jerash, hundreds of typical Near Eastern tells, innumerable
small archaeological sites, and the ubiquitous pottery sherds which are, quite
literally, everywhere you look. The Madaba Plains Project has been working in an
area just south of Jordan's capital, Amman, since 1968, excavating Tell Hesban,
Tell el-Umayri, and Tell Jalul, and carrying out archaeological surveys in the
vicinity of each excavation site (LaBianca, 1990; LaBianca, et al., 1995). This
paper examines ways in which the Madaba Plains Project has used ArcInfo to
further its archaeological research, including the construction of environmentally
based site probability models, the use of an erosion model to track the introduction
of terrace agriculture during the Iron Age, and the analysis of surface pottery
sherds from an excavation site.

Settlement Patterns And Environmental Probability Models

In 1991, the Madaba Plains Project began using ArcInfo to build probability
models for sites in the Tell el-Umayri regional survey. Conducted within a five
kilometer radius of the main excavation site, the regional survey has documented
131 archaeological sites, ranging in age from the lower Palaeolithic to late Islamic,
and in size from urban centers to small, seasonal encampments. The probability
models are being used both as predictors of areas likely to produce additional
antiquity sites, and to help answer questions about the relationship between
archaeological sites and the environment. Already in the early seventies, a
distinctive, cyclical pattern was noted in the ceramics collected by both excavation
and survey teams on the Madaba Plain on figer 1

18
a pattern which is indicative of settlement intensification and abatement in the
region. There had always been a suspicion that these cycles were in some way tied
to the environment (Geraty & LaBianca, 1985), but making concrete connections
between the archaeological sites and the environment had proven difficult. The
inclusion of ArcInfo GIS in 1991 finally allowed us to make the connection.

The first step in this process was the construction of an environmental GIS
database in GRID. Environmental data, principally hydrograph, hypsography,
surgical geology, and soils, were digitized from 1:25,000 maps of the Tell el-Mayra
region. From these base coverage's, environmental variables which detailed
everything from simple distance measures, such as distance to wade channels and
soil types, to typical geomorphologic themes, such as elevation, slope, aspect, and
relief, to more specialized geomorphologic themes such as a shelter index, and
ridge drainage index, were created in GRID. In all, the Mayra GIS database had 13
environmental coverage's.

The second step was to incorporate the archaeological data and build the models,
following a methodology developed for archaeological sites by Kvamme (1992).
Concentrating here on Iron 1 and Iron 2 sites (a transition from low to high
settlement intensity), probability models based on the environmental variables
noted above were constructed using stepwise logistic regression. The initial phase
in the process was to query all environmental variables using the grid command
SAMPLE, in order to determine the local environment at Iron Age I and Iron Age
II sites in the region, and, for purposes of comparison, at 250 randomly located
non-sites. The results of this process, a series of ASCII files, were exported to
STATA (Computing Resource Center, 1992), a PC based statistical software
package for analysis. Stepwise logistic regression differs from standard logistic

19
regression in that, based on pre-selected significance levels, it adds and removes
variables according to their relative strengths within the regression in order to
create a maximum-likelihood model. These significance levels are based on the
probability of a given variable's t-score occurring by chance, and for our models
aggressive significance levels, 0.15 for adding a variable and 0.20 for removing a
variable were chosen.

Making The Probability Models

Of the thirteen available variables, the stepwise procedure selected four as

significant to sites with Iron 1 pottery; Relief Below Locus, Distance toWade
Channels, Ridge/Drainage Index, and Distance to Type 3 soil .

shows us how these variables were used to create a probability model. To make
the model, each variable selected by the stepwise process was multiplied by its
corresponding regression coefficient to produce weighted variables. These
weighted variables were then summed to create the probability model. Essentially,
what this model illustrates is the environmental signature for Iron Age I sites. To
clarify the results and facilitate comparisons, the model was logistically
transformed, re-scaling its values to a probability score between zero and one for
each cell in the grid. The result of this process can be seen in Figure

20
 . Here,
lighter shades correspond to areas with low probability scores, those areas least
like the environmental signature of sites with Iron 1 pottery, and dark shades
correspond to areas with high probability scores, those areas most like the
environmental signature of these sites.

To test the strength of the model, the grid was queried to determine how well it
predicted our site and non-site samples. In the histogram in Figure , there is a clear
distinction between the distribution of site and non-site samples, indicative of a
fairly strong model. If we use the mid-point in the distribution, 0.5, as a cut-point
for predicting site or non-site, we can divide the probability scores into two groups.
Looking at the samples to the right of 0.5, we find that the model correctly
predicted 81% of the sampled sites, but the price it paid for this level of prediction
was that it incorrectly predicted 30% of the non-site sample indicating that this
model represents a 51% improvement over chance. In other words, if you were
interested in finding more sites with Iron 1 pottery, this model would allow you to
concentrate your search in just 30% of the region, with the promise that you will
find about 81% of the sites with Iron 1 pottery.

Using the same procedure for sites with Iron 2 pottery, we find a somewhat
different picture. Again, the stepwise procedure selected four variables, Maximum
Relief, Distance to Type 3 Soil, Ridge/Drainage Index, and Relief Above Locus, to
create the model. Already in Figure 3b, we can see that the amount of the survey
area falling in the higher probability zones has increased, suggesting that this
model is not as strong as the Iron 1 model.

This is supported by the distribution of the site and non-site samples. In Figure 4b,
the site sample is still well to the right of 0.5, but now the non-site sample more

21
closely approximates a normal distribution. We can again use 0.5 as a cut-point to
divide the region. Now the correctly predicted sites have declined to 65%, while
the incorrectly predicted non-sites have risen from 30% to 40%. This leaves us
with an improvement over chance of 25%, roughly half of that provided by the
Iron 1 model. This is a clear indication that the environmental signature for Iron 2
sites is less specific than that for Iron 1 sites.

What The Probability Models Mean

This brings us to the question of what these models can tell us about the periods
they represent. Based on the models explored in this paper, there are clear
connections between the environment and locational strategies in the Umayri
region. Principally, an inverse relationship between the strength of a model and the
level of settlement intensification. As settlement intensifies, the strength of our
model decreases, clearly seen in the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II. This

22
is evidence of a change in locational strategies. Instead of locating in narrowly
focused environmental zones, Iron 2 sites were scattered throughout the
environment. This change in the strength of the models suggests both that
population pressures were forcing people to settle in less favorable environmental
zones, and, as might be expected, a greater diversity in subsistence strategies came
with settlement intensification. Finally, extending this logic it could be posited that
as available lands become more environmentally marginal, survival pressures
would continue to build until a crisis point is reached when environmental and
social constraints meet head on with the pressures of population growth, which
may explain the sudden, and periodic collapse of settlement in the region.

Erosion Models And Iron Age Agricultural Intensification

Throughout history, soil erosion and water conservation have been important
considerations affecting the success of agricultural endeavors. This is especially
true in the arid and semiarid Middle East, where intensive agricultural practices,
including the construction of agricultural terraces, have been utilized for millennia.
Today ancient agricultural terraces litter the landscape, but discovering the age of
ancient terrace walls by conventional archaeological means has proven nearly
impossible.

This inability to date ancient terrace walls has lead to an ongoing debate
concerning the introduction of terrace based agriculture during the Iron Age.
Terraces have been portrayed by some researchers as the minimum technological
requirement for the establishment of settlements during the Iron Age I period
(Stager, 1982; Stager, 1985). Other researchers have argued that the tremendous
amount of labor necessary to construct and maintain terraces and the fact that crops
can be grown on slopes of up to 30 degrees without the aid of terraces suggests that
terraces were not introduced during Iron Age I, a period of relatively low
population, but were introduced later as a response to expanding population
pressures during Iron Age II (Hopkins, 1985). With no way to ascertain the age of
the ancient terraces, the argument remains unsolved.

This project proposes a new approach for addressing the question of when terrace
agriculture was introduced Tell el-Umayri. Based on the assumption that if
archaeological sites are located in areas with low erosion potential, terracing would
have been both unnecessary and improbable, a series of models detailing erosion
potential under a variety of conditions were built for the Umayri region. Iron Age I
and Iron Age II archaeological sites from the region were then overlaid on the
predicted erosion surfaces in order to discover the erosion potential in the vicinity
of each site. If it was found that Iron Age I sites were found primarily in low
erosion areas, and Iron Age II sites were found in increasingly higher erosion areas,
it would indicate that terraces were most likely introduced during Iron Age II.

Constructing the Components of the Erosion Model

23
This study assumes that areas with high erosion rates (>50 metric
tons/hectare/year) cannot be successfully farmed using dryland farming practices
without soil and water conservation structures. To model the rate of erosion, the
Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE), developed by the USDA Agricultural
Research Service, was used (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978). The USLE is one of the
most widely used methods for predicting erosion and has been successfully applied
within a GIS framework (Cowen, 1993; Warren et al 1989). One advantage of the
USLE is that it uses readily available data which can mapped. The USLE equation
is: A = R K L S C, where A, is the computed annual soil loss per acre (metric
tons/hectare/year) and is the product of the following factors:

Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R): The R factor reflects the erosive energy of rainfall
and is computed based on rainfall intensity. Using information developed by the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization a R value of 75 was assigned to
our study area (FAO, 1979).

Soil Erodibility Factor (K): The K factor is computed as a function of soil texture
and structure. The three soils in the study region, referred to as wadi, slope and
ridge soils, were all varieties of the Red Mediterranean Soils typical to the region.
Wadi soils are found in the drainage bottoms and have a silty clay texture with less
than 20% gravel or rock fragments. The slope soils are typically found on slopes
and in small tributary wadis. They are a silty clay loam with a gravel or rock
fragment content from 30% to 50%. The Ridge Soils, found along the ridge tops,
have a silt loam texture and a gravel and rock fragment content between 30% and
70%. Historically, the Ridge soils had the best water and nutrient retention
characteristics, and therefore were the better agricultural soils. With the
combination of deforestation and discontinuity in terrace maintenance in the
region, ridge soils have experienced high erosion levels and today are relatively
shallow with significant levels of exposed bedrock. The erosion models assume
that this soil was deeper and had a lower percentage of gravel in antiquity than it
does today. Using soil survey information from the study area, K values of 0.38,
0.35, and 0.69 were assigned to the Wadi soils, Slope soils, and Ridge soils,
respectively. The soil erodibility factor (K) map was created by a reclassification of
the soil map of the study area.

Slope Gradient (S) and Length (L) Factors: Contour maps of the region were
digitized and a surface model created for the study area. The AML used in the
creation of the slope gradient (S) factor was based on a procedure described by
Cowen (1993) which uses rasterized facets from a triangulated irregular network,
or TIN, to estimate slope gradient. This procedure yielded average slope gradients
(in percent) for each facet in the TIN surface which were then rasterized and the S
factor computed. Because of resolution limitations in the data a L factor of 1.0 was
assumed across the study area.

24
Vegetative Cover Factor (C): The C factor describes the impact of vegetation, or
lack thereof, on potential erosion. Using information from the United States Soil
Conservation Service a C factor of 0.01 was assigned to natural conditions, 0.1 to
deforested conditions and 0.3 to farmed conditions in the Umayri region.

Building the Erosion Models

Models for three different conditions were constructed; with climax vegetation
intact, a deforested landscape, and a deforested landscape being cultivated for
agricultural purposes. Creating the models was accomplished by multiplying the
USLE factors to create new coverages of erosion potential for the three
conditions(Figure 5).

These
models were then reclassed into three categories based on potential erosion: low
erosion potential (<10 metric tons/ha/year), medium erosion potential (10 to 50
metric tons/ha/year), and high erosion potential (>50 metric tons/ha/year). At less
than 10 tons, moisture retention is excellent with new soil forming fast enough to
replenish that lost to erosion. Between 10 to 50 tons, less water will percolate into
the soil and the consequent runoff will cause soil depletion to occur, but at
relatively low rates, often slow enough that soil loss would not necessarily be
apparent to the farmer. Finally, at rates above 50 tons/ha/year, soil loss would be
readily apparent. Sheet wash and gullying of the soil would be problems for the
farmer and remedial steps would be necessary for continued farming in these
regions.

The predicted erosion with climax vegetation indicate very little potential for
erosion (Figure 6a). In this model, 99% of the region loses less than 10 metric

25
tons/ha/year, and the remaining 1% loses between 10 and 50 tons/ha/year. This
model demonstrates that left in its natural state, the Umayri survey area would not
experience significant erosion problems.

If vegetation were removed from the region, erosion potential changes

dramatically, with an increase in areas of high erosion at the expense of the low
erosion zones(Figure 6b). The area with less than 10 tons/ha/year of erosion has
dropped from 99% to 64%, the area with 10-50 tons/year has risen from 1% to
31%, and 5% of the region with 50 tons/ha/year. Over the long run, deforestation
would cause serious problems for the region, and is probably primarily responsible
for the large areas of exposed bedrock today.

A more serious change occurs if after the land is cleared it is tilled for agricultural
purposes (Figure 6c).

This causes the percentage of high erosion zones to increase, with large portions of
the area exhibiting high erosion potential. In fact, 24% of the region is now losing
more than 50 tons/ha/year, and the areas losing less than 10 tons/year now
comprise just 33% of the region. Clearly, the coming of agriculture would have had
an impact on the landscape and it was likely a learning process for the farmers as
they sought to open new areas to cultivation. It is clear from this model that there

26
are substantial portions of the landscape where terraces would be necessary for
agriculture to be successful.

Surface Erosion and Intensification

The erosion models were used to examine the relationship between archaeological
sites and erosion potential. Approaching this question from the perspective of the
farmer, the expectation was that they would prefer optimal agricultural zones;
those with ridge soils and low erosion potential. To obtain an accurate picture of
conditions in the immediate vicinity of the sites, Iron 1 and Iron Age II sites were
buffered 100 meters, which represents an area of 3.14 hectares per site. The soil
and erosion potential maps were then queried by the buffered site maps and cross-
tabulations of the results were prepared.

Looking first at the region as a whole, the cross-tabs establish a base from which to
make comparisons. In Table 1, erosion potential of less than 50 metric tons/ha/year
is labeled acceptable and erosion greater than 50 metric tons/ha/year is labeled
unacceptable. Note, that within the region 26% of the land would be considered
optimal for agriculture, having both acceptable erosion levels and ridge soils. It is
also clear that there was adequate room for the establishment of farms in areas with
low potential erosion with only 23.8% of the region falling into the unacceptable
erosion category. One final number to note is the total area taken up by ridge soils.
At 44%, these soils constitute the best, but not the majority of soil in the region.

Table 1: Cross-tabulation of Soils and Erosion Potential for Survey Area

Ridge Slope Wadi

total
Soils Soils Soils
Acceptable Erosion 26.0% 27.7% 22.5% 76.2%
Unacceptable
18.0% 3.47% 2.35% 23.8%
Erosion
total 44.0% 31.2% 24.8% 100%

When compared to the percentages for Iron Age I sites (Table 2) clear differences
emerge. As expected a large percentage of the landscape surrounding these sites
had both acceptable erosion levels and ridge soils. While this optimal agricultural
zone was found in just 26% of the total project area, it constituted 43.8% of the
land in the vicinity of Iron Age I sites, making it the largest of the six possible
categories. The second thing to notice is that more than 84% of the area
surrounding Iron Age I sites is made up of ridge soils, substantially more than the
44% in the project area as a whole. Finally, note the difference between the totals

27
for unacceptable erosion levels. While the region as a whole had only 23.8% in
unacceptable zones, the area surrounding Iron Age I sites is 42.2% and all but
1.56% are on ridge soils. Based on these comparisons, the most important factor
for Iron Age I settlers was locating in areas with ridge soils. If possible, areas with
low erosion were utilized, but the principal factor was clearly soil type.

Table 2: Cross-tabulation of Soils and Erosion Potential for Iron Age I Sites

Ridge Slope Wadi

total
Soils Soils Soils
Acceptable Erosion 43.8% 13.5% 0.521% 57.8%
Unacceptable
40.6% 1.04% 0.521% 42.2%
Erosion
total 84.4% 14.6% 1.04% 100%

This conclusion is strengthened if the results for Iron Age II sites are examined
(Table 3). Terrace agriculture clearly played a significant role in the Iron Age II
economy. If subsistence strategies were significantly different from Iron Age I to
Iron Age II, this would be reflected by differences between the samples. Instead,
more similarity was found than dissimilarity. There is a shift to the right during the
Iron Age II period, as other soil types were utilized more frequently, but the most
important factor for Iron Age II sites remains ridge soils, now evenly split between
areas of acceptable and areas of unacceptable erosion. Further, the totals for Iron
Age II erosion potential are essentially identical to that for the Iron Age I sites,
with 42.7% of the area surrounding Iron Age II sites in unacceptable zones. These
relatively small differences indicate that the same agricultural zones were being
utilized during Iron Age I and Iron Age II. Presumably, they were facing similar
problems and utilizing similar strategies to solve these problems.

Table 3: Cross-tabulation of Soils and Erosion Potential for Iron Age II Sites

Ridge Slope Wadi

total
Soils Soils Soils
Acceptable Erosion 36.1% 16.5% 4.68% 57.3%
Unacceptable
36.1% 4.51% 2.13% 42.7%
Erosion
total 72.2% 21.0% 6.80% 100%

Erosion Model Summary

GIS was used to examine the relationship between ancient agricultural

development and environmental factors. Based on this research several conclusions

28
can be drawn regarding soil erosion and agricultural practices in the Umayri
region. First, with deforestation and the introduction of agriculture, soil erosion
would have been a serious problem in substantial portions of the region. Second,
Iron Age farmers clearly preferred ridge soils. Third, an area's erosion potential
was less important than soil type in selecting locations for sites. And finally, it is
highly probable that agricultural terraces were utilized by both Iron Age I and Iron
Age II farmers. For Iron Age I farmers, the benefit of using ridge soils outweighed
the cost of building and maintaining terraces. The terrace system was likely
expanded during Iron Age II in response to an increasing population.

Ceramic Distribution And ArcInfo

Finally, during the summer of 1994, the Madaba Plains Project began a long term
project using ArcInfo to study surface distribution of pottery sherds at Tell Jalul,
Jordan. A scatter of ceramic sherds on the ground is often used by archaeologists to
determine the location and time period of an ancient settlement, and they may also
reveal something about what an archaeologist would find upon excavating a site. In
the Near East, large mounds, or tells, are known settlement sites, often occupied
for hundreds or thousands of years, and it has long been held that analysis of the
broken bits of pottery scattered across the surface of a tell can help an
archaeologist visualize and interpret such things as changing population levels,
residence patterns, and social differentiation before excavation begins. Whether or
not this assumption is true has never been documented, raising questions about the
relationship between surface sherds and still buried archaeological remains.

Data Collection and Processing

In order to begin addressing these questions, it was decided to collect and model
the distribution of surface ceramics at Tell Jalul. Excavation at this site was in its
earliest stages and took place within the context of a 6 x 6 meter grid of excavation
squares, or cells. This same grid was used as the framework for the systematic
collection of ceramic and elevation data from the site. There were 45 rows and 55
columns in the grid, creating 2475 cells. Elevation readings were taken from the
center point of each cell, and ceramics were collected from every other cell,
checkerboard fashion. Each collection cell was referenced by map coordinates at
its center point, and assigned a sequential ID number which would serve as a
relational item between a point coverage of this grid and the ceramic attribute data
tables.

Following shipment to the United States, the ceramics were analyzed and
categorized according to their attributes of type -- such as jar, platter, or bowl --
and time period -- such as Early Bronze Age, Iron 1, or Modern. For each cell, the
count and weight of ceramics were recorded by vessel type and time period. In all
43,199 sherds, with a total weight of just under 623 kilos, were processed. Of
these, 2791 were diagnostic, that is rims, bases, and decorated sherds which can be

29
used to assign a date to the pottery. These ceramic attributes were entered into an
INFO table MANYPOTS by cell ID number (ID_NO), with many records per
ID_NO. INFO was then used interactively to validate entries, and to calculate total
counts (CNT) and weights (WGHT) for all attributes over the entire Tell.

Additionally, the elevation data had been entered into an INFO table. Then a point
coverage was created of the center points of each cell in the collection grid with
elevation as an item in the PAT. From this point cover, TOPOGRID was used to
create a DEM of the Tell, and from this DEM a map of topographic contours was
created.

Making the Models

Modeling ceramic distribution was a complex process. In INFO, two one-to-many

processing methods were used in the production of pottery distribution maps over
the tell surface. The first created a "subset" table from selected records. The second
method created a summary table containing cumulative totals from items in
selected records.

30
To create the subset table, a selection menu was written in AML; this allowed the
user to select an archaeological period which was then passed as a variable to
INFO through another AML called INFORESEL. In this AML, the "many" table of
ceramic attribute data was the selected table, while an empty template of the subset
table was the related table. As you can see, the table (MANYPOTS) was
SELECTed (Line 16), then RESELECTed according to the variable value passed
from the selection menu (Line 17). The empty table, PSUBSET, was RELATEd
with the APPEND option (Line 18).

The next active command created the file by appending one record per relate item
to the subset table, automatically filling in the related item's value. In this case, the
active command which created the table was the CALC command (Line 19), which
transferred the CNT value to the subset CNT item; the next CALC command
transferred the WGHT value to the subset table's WGHT item.

Up to this point the INFO commands listed in the AML were processed as if they
were executed interactively. This means that a single command processes all
selected records. However, through INFO's PROGRAMming feature, it is possible
to process several commands per record. The special processing feature of a
PROGRAM is the ability to switch between processing one command for all
records and processing multiple commands for one record; this switch is in the
"odd" and "even" program sections.

The rest of this example demonstrates how a summary table was created, with one
record per ID_NO, containing total CNT and total WGHT for the period. In Line
21, the command RUN TOTES ran a program named TOTES in the INFO
subdirectory. This program SELECTed the previously created PSUBSET table and
Related an empty template table SUMCTWT in the odd program section ONE,
where each command acts on all records. Then, in the even program section TWO,
both CALC commands acted on the first related record. Processing continued to
loop through both CALC commands in the even section (TWO) for each
succeeding record until end of table. (If further interactive-type commands were
needed, a new odd section THREE would be added at this point.)

The resulting summary-subset table SUMCTWT was used in GRID to create

surfaces which model ceramic distribution at Tell Jalul. First, the time period
variable was used in ARC to create a coverage containing only points matching the
selection criteria. Then SUMCTWT was related by ID_NO to this coverage, and a
surface.

31
 The
surfaces created by this process show the distribution of pottery from a particular
archaeological period, or a particular vessel type across the surface of Tell Jalul. As
excavation at the site proceeds, these surfaces will allow us to compare surface
ceramic distribution by period, and by vessel type to ceramics found below the
surface. This will enable us to answer questions concerning the relationship
between surface and subsurface archaeological remains.

32
Chapter (4)
Conclusion

33
Conclusion
Finally, the systems have achieved the proposed
outcomes through the analysis of datasets to give
an evacuation plan for the community. The project
reflects an estimate of 250 hours’ worth of work,
where most of the time is spent on literature
review, data acquisition, data analysis and
documentation.
This concluding chapter discusses the possibility
of extending the thesis for wide range of
applications and analysis. Future studies range
from the expansion of the current CAS or
developing an all hazard model.
Furthermore, the role of GIS that have been
achieved through this study and the final results
projects all the work that has been placed into this
study. The evacuation map could be used as a
final product to the thesis.
The power of a GIS comes from the ability to
relate different information in a spatial context and
to reach a conclusion about this relationship. Most
of the information we have about our world
contains a location reference, placing that
information at some point on the globe. When
rainfall information is collected, it is important to
know where the rainfall is located. This is done by
using a location reference system, such as

34
longitude and latitude, and perhaps elevation.
Comparing the rainfall information with other
information, such as the location of marshes
across the landscape, may show that certain
marshes receive little rainfall. This fact may
indicate that these marshes are likely to dry up,
and this inference can help us make the most
appropriate decisions about how humans should
interact with the marsh. A GIS, therefore, can
reveal important new information that leads to
.better decision making

The potential of GIS to help archaeologists understand

how ancient people related to the landscape is
tremendous. Ancient people understood how the land
could best meet their needs and located their settlements
accordingly. The change in settlement patterns from
Iron Age I to Iron Age II in the Umayri region reflects a
change in the way they utilized the environment. As
evidenced by the strong probability model for Iron Age
I sites, a relatively low population allowed these people
to focus their settlement in areas best suited to their
needs. During Iron Age II, settlement expanded into less
desirable areas, reflecting both population pressures and
greater diversity in subsistence strategies. This
connection between settlement and the environment is
also seen in their preference for ridge soils. This soil
type was so valued that even in Iron Age I, with its

35
relatively low population, terracing was likely to have
been used.
GIS also allows a researcher to see and examine intra-
site patterns and make inquiries into how people lived.
Although the strengths of GIS lie more naturally with
regional studies, the final example shows that it is
robust enough to answer site-based questions as well.
This kind of flexibility means that the use of GIS, such
as Arc Info, in Near Eastern archaeology will only
continue to grow as we use it to examine how ancient
cities were organized. As GIS databases expand, inter-
regional comparisons will be made and questions
regarding topics such as trade and migration addressed.
Like everyone in the GIS world, all an archaeologist
needs to make this kind of analysis possible is more
data, faster computers, improving software, and
increased funding.

36
Chapter (5)
References

37
 References Cited

Computing Resource Center (1992). STATA. Santa Monica: Computing Resource

Center.

Cowen, J. (1993). A Proposed Method for Calculating the LS Factor for Use With
the USLE in a Grid-Based Environment. In Thirteenth Annual Esri User
Conference, (pp. 65-74). Palm Springs, CA: Environmental Systems Research
Institute.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1979). A

Provisional Methodology for Soil Degradation Assesment. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Geraty, L. T., & LaBianca, Ø. S. (1985). The Local Environment and Human Food
Procuring Strategies in Jordan: The Case of Tell Hesban and its Surrounding
Region. In A. Hadidi (Eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
II (pp. 323-330). Amman, Jordan: Department of Antiquities.

Hopkins, D. C. (1985). The Highlands of Canaan. Sheffield, England: Almond.

Kvamme, K. L. (1992). A Predictive Site Location Model on the High Plains: An

Example with an Independent Test. Plains Anthropologist, 37(138), 19-50.

LaBianca, Ø. S. (1990). Sedentarization and Nomadization: Food System Cycles at

Hesban and Vicinity in Transjordan. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews
University/Institute of Archaeology.

LaBianca, Ø. S., Herr, L. G., Younker, R. W., Geraty, L. T., Clark, D. R.,
Christopherson, G. L., Cole, J. A., Daviau, P. M. M., Fisher, J. R., Lawlor[38], J. I.,
Harrison, T. P., Hubbard, L. E., London, G. A., Low, R., & Schnurrenberger, D.
(1995). Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary report on the 1989 Season at Tell el-
Umeiri and Vicinity. In W. G. Dever (Eds.), Preliminary Excavation Reports:
Sardis, Bir Um Fawakhir, Tell el-Umeiri, The Combined Caesarea Expeditions,
and Tell Dothan (pp. 93). Baltimore: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Stager, L. E. (1982). The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the
Terraces of the Kidron. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 41(2), 111-121.

Stager, L. E. (1985). The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research, 260, 1-35.

38
Warren, S. D., Diersing, V. E., Thompson, P. J., & Goran, W. D. (1989). An
Erosion- Based Land Classification System for Military
Installations. Environmental Management, 13, 251-257.

Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses - A

Guide to Conservation Planning. In USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 282

Author Information

Gary L. Christopherson is a Ph.D. candidate in the Near East Studies Department,

and a Research Assistant in the Advanced Resource Technology Group at the
University of Arizona 85721. Tel. (520) 621-3045; garych@nexus.srnr.arizona.edu

D. Phillip Guertin is an Associate Professor in the Advanced Resource Technology

Group, School of Renewable Natural Resources at the University of Arizona
85721. Tel. (520) 621-1723; phil@nexus.srnr.arizona.edu

Karen A. Borstad is a Ph.D. candidate in the Near East Studies Department, and a
Research Assistant in the Advanced Resource Technology Group at the University
of Arizona 85721. Tel. (520) 621-3045; borstad@nexus.srnr.arizona.edu

39
001 &data ARC INFO
002 ARC
003 /*
/* Do some housekeeping. Reused tables,
004
must be
005 /* empty
006 /*
007 SELECT PSUBSET
008 PURGE
009 Y
010 SELECT SUMCTWT
011 PURGE
012 Y
013 /*
014 /* End of housekeeping
015 /*
016 SELECT MANYPOTS
RESELECT PERIOD CN [quote
017
%.value1%]
RELATE PSUBSET BY ID_NO WITH
018
APPEND
019 CALC $1CNT = $1CNT + CNT
020 CALC $1WGHT = $1WGHT + WGHT
021 RUN TOTES
022 Q STOP
023 &end

INFORESEL AML

40