No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The state of the Arc: Differential Rates of Adoption of GIS for European Heritage Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
Abstract
Although much has been written about the use of information technologies for the management of archaeological resources at a national level, there has been little published discussion of the problems and opportunities that are apparent at the supra-national scale. In this paper, we consider the historical development and current state of database management systems and, more recently, geographic information systems in the management of archaeological information at a European scale. We review the development of archaeological inventories, from paper-based records to complex computer-based systems, and then consider the situation throughout Europe, taking account of archaeological needs as well as the administrative, social and political context. Our study reveals that, despite widespread acknowledgement of the advantages of such technologies, GIS has not been rapidly or consistently deployed. A very wide variety of systems and standards currently exists throughout the community, a situation which is explained through reference to the separate historical development of archaeological management structures in the different countries. We identify a number of common issues that recur wherever GIS has been applied to the management of archaeological inventories. Particular attention is drawn to historical and logistical issues, the availability of technological skills, geo-referencing, the spatial definition of the archaeological evidence and the definition of analytical concepts within archaeological management.
Bien que beaucoup ait été écrit au sujet de l'utilisation des techniques de gestion des ressources archéologiques au niveau national, bien peu de discussions concernant les problèmes et les possibilités apparentes au niveau supra-national ont été publiées. Dans cet article, nous passons en revue le développement historique et examinons l'état des systèmes de gestion ainsi que le développement plus récent des systèmes d'informations géographiques pour la gestion des informations archéologiques à l'échelle européenne. Nous passons en revue le développement des inventaires archéologiques depuis leur tout début jusqu'aux systèmes complexes sur ordinateurs et nous considérons la situation au travers de l'Europe, prenant en compte les besoins archéologiques ainsi que les besoins du contexte administratif, social et politique. Notre étude revèle que malgré l'avantage reconnu de telles techniques le déployement des systèmes d'informations géographiques ne s'est pas fait rapidement ou de façon cohérente. Une tres grande variété de systèmes et de standards existent actuellement au sein de la communauté des archéologues, une situation que l'on peut expliquer en faisant réference au développement historique séparé des structures de gestion archéologiques dans les différents pays. Nous identifions un certain nombre de problèmes communs qui se répètent partout ou les systèmes d'informations géographiques ont été utilisés pour la gestion des inventaires archéologiques. On met l'accent en particulier sur les problèmes d'origine historique et logistique, l'accès au savoir faire technologique, la géo-réference, la definition dans l'espace des données archéologiques et la définition de concepts analytiques au sein de la gestion archéologique.
Zusammenfassung
Obschon viel über die Nutzung von Informationstechnologien zur Verwaltung archäologischer Ressourcen auf nationaler Ebene geschrieben wurde, hat man bisher nut wenig von der Diskussion über Probleme und Möglichkeiten die auf supranationaler Ebene auftreten, veröffentlicht. In diesem Beitrag betrachten wir die historische Entwicklung und den gegenwärtigen Zustand von Systemen zur Verwaltung von Datenbanken und die jüngere Entwicklung geographischer Informations-systeme bei der Verwaltung archäologischer Information auf europäischer Ebene. Wir halten Rückschau auf die Entwicklung archäologischer Inventare vom Verzeichnis auf Papier bis hin zu komplexen Computer-gestützten Systemen und berücksichtigen dann die Situation in ganz Europa, wobei die archäologischen Notwendigkeiten als auch der administrative, soziale und politische Kontext einbezogen wird. Unsere Studie zeigt, daß trotz der allgemeinen Anerkennung der Vorteile solcher Technologien, GIS nicht rasch oder konsequent eingesetzt wurde. Eine breite Variabilität von Systemen und Standards existiert gegenwärtig unter der gesamten Benutzergemeinde, eine Situation, die sich in Bezug auf die unterschiedliche historische Entwicklung archäologischer Verwaltungsstrukturen in den verschiedenen Ländern erklären läßt. Wir identifizieren eine Anzahl von allgemeingültigen Punkten, die dort wiederkehren wo immer GIS zur Verwaltung archäologischer Bestände eingesetzt wurde. Spezielle Aufmerksamkeit wird entwicklungsgeschichtlichen und logistischen Themen gewidmet, der Verfügbarkeit technologischer Möglichkeiten, Geo-Referenzen, der räumlichen Bestimmung archäologischer Nachweise sowie der Fixierung archäologischer Konzepte innerhalb der Verwaltung archäologischer Denkmäler.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications
References
Aberg, F.A. and Leech, R.H., 1992. The National Archaeological Record for England. Past, Present and Future. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 157–169. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Amores, F., Garcia, L., Hurtado, V. and Rodriguez-Bobada, M.C., 1999. Geographic Information Systems and Archaeological Resource Management in Andalusia (Spain). In Barcelo, J.A., Briz, I. and Vila, A. (eds), New Techniques for Old Times. Computer Applications in Archaeology 1998. BAR International Series: 351–358. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Amores, F., Garcia, L., Hurtado, V. and Rodriguez-Bobada, M.C., forthcoming. An exploratory GIS approach to the Andalusian archaeological heritage records. In Lockyear, K., Sly, T.J. and Mihailescu-Bǐrliba, V. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference 1996. laşi: Editura Demiurg.Google Scholar
Andresen, J., 1988. The status of the use of computer applications in Danish Archaeology. In Rahtz, S.P. (ed.), Computers and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1988. BAR International Series 446: 409–416. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Andresen, J., Madsen, T. and Scollar, I. (eds), 1993. Computing the Past. Proceedings of the 1992 CAA Conference (Åarhus, March 1992). Åarhus: Åarhus University Press
Google Scholar
Arroyo, D., 1998. GIS and archaeology in France. In Moscati, P. and Tagliamonte, G. (eds), Methodological Trends and Future Perspectives in the Application of GIS to Archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori
9: 31–45. Firenze: Edizioni All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Arroyo, D. and Lantada, M.T., 1992. The ArchéoDATA System: a method for structuring an European Archaeological Information System (AIS). In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 133–153. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Baldi, P.
1992. La Carta del Riesgo del Patrimonio Cultural. In La Carta de Riesgo. Una Experiencia Italiana para la Valoración Global de los Factores de Degradación del Patrimonio Monumentai: 8–14. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
Beagrie, N.
1996. Excavations and archives: alternative aspects of cultural resource management. In Kamerans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995: 81–85. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Bell, M. and King, N., 1996. The MARS Project. An interface with England's past. In Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995: 87–91. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Biórnstad, M.
1989. The ICOMOS International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM). In Cleere, H. (ed.), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. One World Archaeeology Series 9: 70–75. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Blankholm, H.P. and Price, T.D., 1991. Arcospace. A Package for Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data. Åarhus: University of Åarhus.Google Scholar
Blasco, C. and Baena, P., 1997. Los SIG y algunos ejemplos de su aplicación para el'estudio y gestión de las cartas arqueológicas. In Baena, J., Blasco, C. and Quesada, F. (eds), Los SIG y el Análisis Espacial en Arqueología: 81–91. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma.Google Scholar
Blasco, C., Espiago, J. and Baena, J., 1996. The role of GIS in the management of archaeological data: an example of an application to the Spanish administration. In Aldenderfer, M. and Maschner, H. (eds), The Anthropology of Human Behaviour Through Geographic Information and Analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourrelly, L. and Chouraqui, E., 1981. The SATIN I System. In Gaines, S.W. (ed.), Data Bank Applications in Archaeology. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Burrow, I. (ed.), 1985. County Archaeological Records: Progress and Potential. Association of County Archaeological Officers (ACAO). Somerset: Association of County Archaeological Officers (ACAO).Google Scholar
Carr, C. (ed.), 1985. For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis. Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique and Theory. Kansas City: Westport.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, J.
1992. The Danish National Record of Sites and Monuments, DKC In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 7–21. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Chouraqui, E.
1974. Le Systeme d'exploitation automatique de 1 Inventaire Général des Monuments et Richesses Artistiques de la France. In Banques de Données Archéologiques. Colloques Nationaux du CNRS 932 (Marseille, 12–14 Juin, 1972). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Cleere, H., 1984. Great Britain In Cleere, H. (ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage. A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems: 54–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
CIDOC, 1995. Draft International Core Data Standard for Archaeological Sites and Monuments. Paris: Comité International pour la Documentation Scientifique.Google Scholar
COE, 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (La Valetta 6.1.1992). European Treaty Series 143. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
COE, 1995. European Bronze Age Monuments. A Multilingual Glossary of Archaeological Terminology. A Draft Covering Denmark, France, The Netherlands, The Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom. Amersfort: Council of Europe Glossary SS7.Google Scholar
COE, 1997. Compendium of Basic Texts of the Council of Europe in the Field of Cultural Heritage. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Cooper, M.A. and Richards, J.D. (eds), 1985. Current Issues in Archaeological Computing. BAR International Series 271. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Csáki, G., Jerem, E. and Redö, F., 1995. Data recording and GIS applications in landscape and intra-site analysis: case studies in progress at the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In Lock, G. and Stančič, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European Perspective: 85–99. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., 1995. Value systems in archaeology. In Cooper, M., Firth, A., Carman, J. and Wheatley, D. (eds), Managing Archaeology: 41–50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., Saunders, A. and Startin, D.W., 1987. A question of national importance: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme. Antiquity
61: 393–408.Google Scholar
Deeben, J., Hallewas, D.P. and Kolen-Wiemer, R., 1997. Beyond the crystal ball. Predictive modelling as a tool in archaeological heritage management and occupation history. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands. Fifty Years State Service for Archaeological Investigations: 76–118. Assen: Van Gorcum & ROB.Google Scholar
Dunbar, J.G.
1992. Inventory in Scotland: the work of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. In RCHME (1992a), Inventories of Monuments and Historic Buildings in Europe: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Oxford (England) in 1988: 35–40. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R.C. and Dancey, W.S., 1983. The siteless survey: a regional scale data collection strategy. In Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory
6: 267–287.Google Scholar
Espiago, G. and Baena, J., 1997. Los Sistemas de Información Geográfica como tecnología informática aplicada a la Arqueología y a la gestión del Patrimonio. In Baena, J., Blasco, C. and Quesada, F. (eds), Los SIG y el Análisis Espacial en Arqueología: 7–65. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Estrada, F., 1997. GPS and GIS as aids for mapping archaeological sites. Archaeological Computing Newsletter
47. Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Fernandez, V. and Fernandez, G. (eds), 1990. Aplicaciones Informáticas en Arqueología. Complutum 1. Madrid: Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
Flyg, P., 1997. GIS in Swedish Archaeology. In Johnston, I. and North, M. (eds), Archaeological Applications of GIS. Proceedings of Colloquium II, UISPP XIIIth Congress (Forli, Italy September 1996). Sydney. Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Gaines, S.W., 1981. Computerized databanks in archaeology: the European situation
Computers and the Humanities vol 15: 223–226.Google Scholar
Gallant, T.W., 1986. Background noise and site definition: a contribution to survey methodology
Journal of Field Archaeology
13: 403–418.Google Scholar
Garcia Fernandez, J.
1989. The new Spanish archaeological heritage legislation. In Cleere, H. (ed.), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. One World Archaeology Series 9: 184–194. London. Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Goldner, R., 1997. GIS-aided recording of archaeological units in Saxony. In Johnson, I. and North, M. (eds), Archaeological Applications of GIS. Proceedings of Colloquium II, UISPP XIIIth Congress (Forli, Italy, September 1996). Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Guillot, D.
1992. The National Archaeological Record of France: advances in computerization. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 125–132. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Guillot, D. and Leroy, G., 1995. The use of GIS for archaeological resource management in France. The SCALA Project, with a case study in Picardy. In Lock, G. and Stančič, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Guillot, D. and Hansen, H.J., n.d. A European core data standard for archaeological sites and monuments. Paper presented at the conference: Archaeological Heritage: Inventory and Documentation Standards in Europe (Oxford, 1995).Google Scholar
Hansen, J.H., 1992. Content, use and perspectives of DKC, the Danish National Record of Sites and Monuments. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 23–42. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Hansen, J.H., 1993. European archaeological databases: problems and prospects. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T. and Scollar, I. (eds), Computing the Past. Proceedings of the 1992 CAA Conference (Åarhus, March 1992): 229–237. Åarhus: Åarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, T.M., 1986. Geographic Information Systems design for archaeological site information retrieval. In Laflin, S. (ed.), Computer Applications in Archaeology 1986. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Harris, T.M. and Lock, G.R., 1992. Toward a regional GIS site information retrieval system: The Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) prototype. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 185–199. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Harris, T.M. and Lock, G.R., 1995. Toward an evaluation of GIS in European Archaeology: the past, present and future of theory and applications. In Lock, G. and Stančič, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Holmen, J. and Uleberg, E., 1996. The National Documentation Project of Norway. The archaeological sub-project. In Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds.), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995: 43–46. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Hugget, J. and Ryan, N. (eds), 1995. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1994. BAR International Series 600. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Hutt, S., Jones, E.W. and Mcallister, M.E., 1992. Archaeological Resource Management. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press.Google Scholar
ICCD, 1992. Sistema Informativo per il Catalogo Generale dei Beni Ambientali, Achitettonici, Archeologici, Artistici e Storici. Roma: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione.Google Scholar
Jankovich, D., 1992. Hungary's archaeological topography survey. In RCHME (1992a), Inventories of Monuments and Historic Buildings in Europe. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Oxford (England) in 1988: 106–111. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
Jaskanis, D., 1992. Polish national record of archaeological sites. General outline. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 81–87. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Jimeno, A., Val, J.M. and Fernandez, J.J. (eds), 1993. Inventarios y Cartas Arqueológicas. Homenaje a Blas Taracena. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.Google Scholar
Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), 1996. Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 1984. Denmark. In Cleere, H. (ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage. A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems: 21–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 1989. Perspectives on the archaeological heritage: history and future. In Cleere, H. (ed.), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. One World Archaeology Series 9: 23–29. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Kvamme, K.L., 1989. Geographic Information Systems in regional archaeological research and data management. Archaeological Method and Theory vol 1:139–203.Google Scholar
Kvamme, K.L., 1990. The fundamental principles and practice of predictive archaeological modelling In Voorrips, A. (ed.), Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: a flexible Framework. Studies in Modern Archaeology
3:257–295. Bonn: Holos-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lang, N.A., 1992. Sites and monuments records in Great Britain. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 171–183. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Lang, N.A., 1993. From model to machine: procurement and implementation of Geographical Information Systems for county sites and monuments records. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T. and Scollar, I. (eds), Computing the Past. Proceedings of the 1992 CAA Conference (Åarhus, March 1992): 167–176. Åarhus: Åarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Lang, N.A.
1995. Recording and managing the national heritage. In Wilcock, J. and Lockyear, K. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993, BAR International Series
598: 75–81. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Lang, N. and Stead, S., 1992. Sites and monuments records in England. Theory and practice. In Lock, G. and Moffet, J. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991. BAR International Series 577: 69–76. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Larsen, C.V. (ed.), 1992. Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Leech, R., 1993a. Data standards for archaeological site records in England. RCHME initiatives. In Roberts, D.A. (ed.), European Museum Documentation Strategies and Standards: 159–162. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.Google Scholar
Leech, R.
1993b. Sites and monuments. National archaeological records. Journal of European Archaeology vol 1 (2):200–204.Google Scholar
Leonard, R.D. and Jones, G.T. (eds), 1989. Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lock, G., 1998. GIS usage in UK archaeology mid-1997: the Caere Survey. In Moscati, P. and Tagliamonte, G. (eds), Methodological Trends and Future Perspectives in the Application of GIS to Archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 9: 147–167. Firenze: Edizioni All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Lock, G. and Moffet, J. (eds), 1992. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991. BAR International Series 577. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Lock, G. and Stančič, Z. (eds), 1995. Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Lockyear, K. and Rahtz, S. (eds), 1991. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1990. BAR International Series 565. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Lockyear, K., Sly, T.J. and Mihailescu-Bǐrliba, V. (eds), 1998. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference 1996. Iaşi: Editura Demiurg.Google Scholar
Madsen, T., 1988. Prospects for the use of computer applications in Danish archaeology. In Rahtz, S.P. (ed.), Computers and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1988. BAR International Series 446: 417–422. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Madsen, T., 1997. GIS and Scandinavian archaeology. A tale from the real world. In Johnson, I. and North, M. (eds), Archaeological Applications of GIS. Proceedings of Colloquium II, UISPP XIIIth Congress (Porli, Italy, September 1996). Sydney. Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Marciniak, A. and Rαczkowski, W., 1992. Polish archaeology and computers: an overview. In Reilly, P. and Rahtz, S.P. (eds), Archaeology and the Information Age. A Global Perspective. One World Archaeology
21: 47–51. London: Routledge
Google Scholar
Marques, T., 1993. El concepto de Carta Arqueológica a través de la experiencia portuguesa. In Jimeno, A., Val, J.M. and Fernandez, J.J. (eds), Inventarios y Cartas Arqueológicas. Homenaje a Blas Taracena: 83–86. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.Google Scholar
Marrewijk, D.V. and Brandt, R., 1997. Dreaming of Malta. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands. Fifty Years' State Service for Archaeological Investigations. Assen: Van Gorcum & ROB.Google Scholar
Mihailescu-Bǐrliba, V. and Chirica, V., 1996. A survey of the development of computer applications in Romanian Archaeology. In Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995: 529–534. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, E. and Larsen, J.H., 1992. Recording archaeological sites in Norway. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 71–78. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Miller, P. and Richards, J., 1995. The good, the bad and the downright misleading: archaeological adoption of computer visualisation. In Huggett, J. and Ryan, N. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1994: 19–22, BAR International Series 600. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Moscati, P., 1998. GIS applications in Italian archaeology. In Moscati, P. and Tagliamonte, G. (eds), Methodological Trends and Future Perspectives in the Application of GIS to Archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 9: 191–236. Firenze: Edizioni All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Murray, D., 1992. Towards harmony. A view of the Scottish archaeological database. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 209–216. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark
Google Scholar
Murray, D., 1995. The management of archaeological information. A strategy. In Wilcock, J. and Lockyear, K. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993. BAR International Series 598: 83–87. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Oberländer, I., 1995. CIDOC archaeological sites working group report. CIDOC Newsletter vol. 6. Paris. International Documentation Committee, International Council of Museums (ICOM).Google Scholar
Oberländer, I., 1996. A statistical view of the archaeological sites database. In Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 1995: 47–50. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Petrie, L., Johnson, I., Cullen, B. and Kvamme, K., 1995. GIS in Archaeology: An Annotated Bibliography. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 1. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Prinke, A.
1992. Polish National Record of Archaeological Sites. A computerization. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 89–94. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Prinke, A., n.d. Adding maps: a simple GIS module for standard applications to manage Polish archaeological heritage (sites, research, finds). Unpublished paper presented at the XXVIth Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (Barcelona, March 1998).Google Scholar
Querol, M.A. and Martinez, B., 1996. La Gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en España. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
Rahtz, S. and Richards, J. (eds), 1989. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1989. BAR International Series 548. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1986. Thesaurus of Archaeological Terms. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monumuments of England.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1992a. Inventories of Monuments and Historic Buildings in Europe. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Oxford (England) in 1988. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1992b. Thesaurus of Archaeological Site Types. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1993. Recording England's Past. A Data Standard for the Extended National Archaeological Record. Swindon: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1995. Thesaurus of Monument Types. A Standard for Use in Archaeological and Architectural Records. Swindon. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
RCHME, 1998. MIDAS. A Manual and Data Standard for Monument Inventories. Swindon: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
Reilly, P. and Rahtz, S.P. (eds), 1992. Archaeology and the Information Age. A Global Perspective. One World Archaeology 21. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, J.D. (ed.), 1986. Computer Usage in British Archaeology. IFA Occasional Paper 1. Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeology.Google Scholar
Ringrose, T.J., 1993. Diversity Indices and Archaeology. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T. and Scollar, I. (eds), Computing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (1992): 279–285. Åarhus: Åarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, H.
1993. The archaeological implications of a computerised integrated National Heritage Information System. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T. and Scollar, I. (eds), Computing the Past. Proceedings of the 1992 CAA Conference (Åarhus, March (1992): 139–150. Åarhus: Åarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Roorda, I. and Wiemer, R., 1992a. The ARCHIS project: towards a new national archaeological record in The Netherlands. In Larsen, C.V. (ed.), Sites and Monuments. National Archaeological Records: 117–122. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Roorda, I. and Wiemer, R., 1992b. Towards a new archaeological information system in The Netherlands. In Lock, G. and Moffet, J. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991. BAR International Series 577. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Schnapp, A., 1984. France. In Cleere, H. (ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage. A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems: 48–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stančič, Z., 1998. GIS in Eastern Europe. Nothing new in the East? In Moscati, P. and Tagliamonte, G. (eds), Methodological Trends and Future Perspectives in the Application of GIS to Archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 9: 237–249. Firenze: Edizioni All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Startin, B., 1995. The Monuments Protection Programme: protecting what, how and for whom? In Cooper, M.A., Firth, A., Carman, J. and Wheatley, D. (eds), Managing Archaeology: 137–145. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suhajda, A., 1992. Computer archaeology in Hungary. In Reilly, P. and Rahtz, S.P. (eds), Archaeology and the Information Age. A Global Perspective. One World Archaeology
21: 52–56. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.H., 1975. Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up the creek without a site. In Mueller, J.W. (ed.), Sampling in Archaeology: 61–81. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.H.
1978. The awful truth about statistics in archaeology. American Antiquity
43 (2): 231–244.Google Scholar
Trigger, B., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
van Leusen, P.M., 1995. GIS and archaeological resource management. A European agenda. In Lock, G. and Stančič, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European Perspective: 27–41. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Vikkula, A., 1992. Recording ancient monuments in Finland. In RCHME, Inventories of Monuments and Historic Buildings in Europe. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Oxford (England) in 1988: 74–77. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar
Wansleeben, M., 1988. Geographic Information Systems in archaeological research In Rahtz, S.P. (ed.), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 1988 CAA Conference (Birmingham, 1988). BAR International Series 446: 435–451. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D., 1995a. The impact of information technology on the practice of archaeological management. In Cooper, M.A., Firth, A., Carman, J. and Wheatley, D. (eds), Managing Archaeology: 163–174. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D., 1995b. Between the lines: the role of GIS-based predictive modelling in the interpretation of extensive survey data. In Kamermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds), Interfacing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology CAA95: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 28: 275–292. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Wilcock, J.D., 1981. Information retrieval for archaeology. In Gaines, S.W. (ed.), Data Bank Applications in Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Wilcock, J.D. and Lockyear, K. (eds), 1995. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993. BAR International Series 598. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
Willems, W.J.H., 1997. Archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands. Past, present and future. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands. Fifty Years State Service for Archaeological Investigations: 3–34. Assen: Van Gorcum & ROB.Google Scholar
Wulf, W., 1992, The inventory of historic monuments in the Federal Republic of Germany. Actual practice and current methodological debate. In RCHME, Inventories of Monuments amd Historic Buildings in Europe
. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Oxford (England) in 1988: 99–102. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.Google Scholar