The call for papers for the CAA 2025 is open!

by GIAP ICAC-CERCA
in Computational Archaeology, Landscape archaeology, Mediterranean Archaeology, Mountain archaeology, Remote Sensing, UnderTheSands
on 9 October 2024

The conference will take place in Athens, Greece, on the 5-9 May 2024. GIAP (ICAC-CERCA) will co-organise 5 sessions:

S20: “Scaling Heights”: Unveiling Mountainous Landscapes Through Interdisciplinary Survey Strategies, Quantitative Modelling and Computational Methods

S27: Release the Kraken – Mobile GIS empowering survey communities across the globe

S28: Follow Rivers: the application of advanced remote sensing, machine learning and modelling in the studies of water management of past societies

S29: Heritage under bombs – digital methods in the studies of endangered heritage in conflict zones

S37: Computational and Landscape Archaeology in the renovation of surface survey methodologies

Deadline: 29 October 2024. Submit your papers here: https://2025.caaconference.org/call-for-papers/

S20: “Scaling Heights”: Unveiling Mountainous Landscapes Through Interdisciplinary Survey Strategies, Quantitative Modelling and Computational Methods

Session Organisers:
Andriana-Maria Xenaki, University of Cambridge
Giannis Apostolou, Landscape Archaeology Research Group (GIAP)/ Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICAC)

Session Format: Standard

INTRODUCTION: Despite their natural allure, mountainous landscapes are significantly underrepresented in archaeological literature (for some notable exceptions see papers in Pelisiak et al. 2018; Garcia-Molsosa 2022). The focus has predominantly been placed on the study of elite material culture expressed by the more ‘developed’ and complex centres of lowland and coastal regions. Modern researchers are also influenced by historical preconceptions, dating back to the Classical and Roman periods. Mountains were, and still are, perceived as wild, untamed spaces, emphasising the need (or the weakness) to domesticate and bring them under forms of state control (König 2016, 48). Such conceptual baggage has shaped social stereotypes of montane communities up to the 19th and 20th centuries (Robb et. al 2019, 6), restricting the study of upland sites as a one-sided dependent relationship with lowland power structures. It appears almost as if the uplands and the lowlands are divided into two worlds, brought together mostly in discussions about political geography and the exertion of control (e.g. fortification systems, peak sanctuaries, and the acquisition and appropriation of mountain resources). Consequently, mountainous landscapes remain marginally explored, with an emphasis on the study of specific types of sites and periods of habitation, namely those related to cultural peaks.

OBJECTIVE: We are welcoming papers that bring to the fore these often-overlooked landscape features through the examination of the long-term relationship between human activities (e.g. settlement evolution patterns, site location preferences, land use practices) and the environment (e.g. geography, climate change) with a particular emphasis on integrating results of regional archaeological surveys with recent multimethod and multiscale landscape archaeology approaches. In doing so, we aim to create a dialectic between the contribution of emerging methodologies and the weaving of archaeological narratives in montane landscapes.

INVITATION: Possible topics for presentations include, but are not limited to:

Survey Design and Research Questions: We consider contributions discussing the theoretical and methodological framework behind survey planning in mountainous areas. We also encourage exchanging feedback on practical limitations, empirical considerations and the shaping of research inquiries related to the study of montane cultural landscapes (Garcia-Molsosa 2022).

Legacy Survey Data: We invite presentations that focus on re-evaluating and integrating legacy survey data to facilitate a dynamic exchange between traditional and contemporary archaeological interpretations. We are particularly interested in contributions that treat legacy data as primary sources of information, rather than merely bibliographic references. Furthermore, presentations may address the challenges of aligning legacy data—often gathered with varying methodologies and standards—with modern datasets, including aspects of site cross-referencing and geolocation, site definition etc (Apostolou et al. 2024).

Modelling Settlement Patterns and Human-Landscape Interactions: We seek studies employing various spatial analysis methods, such as point pattern analyses and predictive modelling, to explore the dynamic settlement patterns and interactions between human populations and their surrounding environments (for general applications of point process models see Baddeley et al. 2016). While these methods are commonly applied in archaeological datasets (e.g. Bevan and Wilson 2013; Davis et al. 2020; Eve and Crema 2014; Spencer and Bevan 2019), their use in mountainous areas remains limited. In many cases the results from lowland studies are often inappropriately extrapolated to highland regions, resulting in a lack of specialised modelling that investigates mountains independently. We encourage critical applications of these methods while also considering their limitations pertaining to sample size, scale, and the quality of archaeological data incorporated in the models. Of particular interest could be the implementation of sensitivity analyses to assess the use of the terms “site” and “settlement” across different survey projects.

Remote Sensing and Machine Learning Applications: We also welcome approaches that use advanced mapping technologies and artificial intelligence applications, such as remote sensing datasets and machine learning algorithms, to detect, classify, and interpret archaeological sites in upland topographies (e.g. Berganzo-Besga et al. 2021; Fontana 2022). Of particular interest would be addressing challenges related to site visibility, taphonomic processes, and the potential for ground-truthing the results through field validation strategies.

27: Release the Kraken – Mobile GIS empowering survey communities across the globe

Session Organisers:
Julia Chyla, University of Warsaw
Giuseppe Prospero Ciriglliano, Scuola IMT Alti Studi Lucca
Nazarij Buławka, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology; University of Warsaw
Adéla Sobotkova, Aarhus Universitet

Session Format: Other

Over the past decades, archaeological field surveys have significantly refined and adapted methodologies to suit various global contexts, from the Mediterranean and Near East to the Americas (Alcock and Cherry 2004; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999; Athanassopoulos and Wandsnider 2011; Banning 2002). In addition to the specific characteristics of each context, it is essential to reflect on the tools and techniques employed and how they are integrated into investigative methodologies. We can observe a gradual change from the site-oriented prospection into a more holistic approach, considering extended artifact scatters and the elusive remains of human presence in the landscape (Knodell et al. 2023). A significant focus was mapping the density of archaeological material between sites using systematic sampling or transects (Judge 1981; Binford 1975; Nance 1983).

The integration of platforms, tools, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and artificial intelligence (AI) allows for multi-scale analysis, producing significant results through the possibility to analyze both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of archaeological data. These advancements enable researchers to better understand the relationship between different layers of information, leading to new insights into landscape archaeology and the complexities of past human-environment interactions. A pressing issue in archaeological surveys is the impact of intensive land use over time, which has led to the depletion of visible archaeological records on the surface. On the other hand, forested areas present unique challenges, as these environments—where archaeological remains might be better preserved—still lack optimized survey strategies (Mazzacca et al. 2022). As field conditions evolve, so too must our methodologies, adapting to account for both degraded landscapes and new technologies that open up a wide range of possibilities.

The GNSS technologies and the expansion of portable handheld devices led to the development of what is currently known as Mobile GIS (Tripcevich 2004; Chyla and Buławka 2020; Sobotkova et al. 2015). It can be used for personal or collaborative work such as recording, monitoring, management, field verification, reporting, and didactics, which empowered archaeologists and cultural heritage authorities (Tibesasa 2021; Anbaroğlu et al. 2020; Abbas et al. 2023). It also changed the surface survey workflows and made systematic sampling or transects simpler and more accessible.

This CAA Mobile GIS Special Interest Group meeting intends to create an environment for presenting and discussing the current projects. It focuses on the extended use of Mobile GIS integrated with other platforms and tools for mapping and monitoring sites, artifacts, and other types of tangible and intangible heritage. In this meeting, we aim to explore the following questions: What changes, benefits, or challenges has mobile technology brought to the overall field workflow? How has it impacted the data lifecycle and research publication or reporting process? How can Mobile GIS impact and empower communities of archaeologists from different countries and continents? How the Mobile GIS can protect heritage and mitigate its destruction or looting?

The session welcomes papers devoted to:

field surveys,

recording, monitoring, management, field verification and reporting using portable devices,

Mobile GIS,

settlement analysis,

citizen science,

surveying in the forest,

public archaeology.

S28: Follow Rivers: the application of advanced remote sensing, machine learning and modelling in the studies of water management of past societies

Session Organisers:
Arciero, Roberto, University of Leiden
Nazarij Buławka, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology; University of Warsaw
Arnau Garcia-Molsosa, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology
Navjot Kour, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology

Session Format: Standard

Studies related to ancient water management are particularly relevant to modern environmental problems and are central to the discourse of complex societies. Wittfogel’s hydraulic hypothesis (1955; 1957) provoked early archaeological studies to investigate the link between extensive irrigation systems and the centralised authority of early states. While present-day research emphasises the significance of water management, it also indicates a more complicated picture (Rost 2022; Wilkinson, Rayne, and Jotheri 2015). Mesopotamian examples indicate that irrigation developed gradually from cleaning parts of the crevasse splay into an extensive network of canals (Wilkinson and Hritz 2013). On the other hand, in the Indus Civilisation, irrigation was not necessary because agriculture was based on the monsoon cycle (Madella and Lancelotti 2022), while in southern Turkmenistan (Central Asia) canals for irrigation were already in place during the Chalcolithic period (Lisitsina 1969).

Water management is a highly complex research field requiring collaboration between different disciplines and the use of various methods. The irrigation landscape is palimpsest, and it can consist of canals, qanats, natural or partially modified channels, rivers, and streams from different periods (Jotheri 2018). The ancient landscape continuously evolves through human agency and natural processes, which leads to deleting or masking of the features (Wilkinson 2003). Computational methods, specifically when combined with other techniques in landscape archaeology, allow us to understand some of that complexity (Garcia et al. 2019). Recent computational method developments have changed how we study ancient landscapes. The appearance of a vast battery of high-resolution satellite images, including HEXAGON (Hammer, FitzPatrick, and Ur 2022), drone imagery (Campana 2017), newly available digital surface models (González et al. 2020), and large cloud datasets available in Google Earth Engine (Orengo and Petrie 2017), opened avenues for reconstructing irrigation systems with greater temporal and spatial resolution. Predictive or agent-based modelling offers another option to build hypotheses on past land use (Angourakis et al. 2014). While machine learning and deep learning provide much for the study, their application is still limited (Li et al. 2022). The session aims to bring together researchers attempting novel approaches in water management studies using computational methods. It welcomes papers focused on satellite remote sensing, Google Earth Engine, machine learning and deep learning, predictive or agent-based modelling of irrigation systems, detection or spatial analysis, and landscape evolution.

S29: Heritage under bombs – digital methods in the studies of endangered heritage in conflict zones

Session Organisers:
Nazarij Buławka, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology; University of Warsaw
Stefano Campana, University of Siena
Mariusz Drzewiecki, University of Warsaw
Oleksandra Ivanova, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Session Format: Other

In the recent few years, the political situation across Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Levant, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Manipur (India), Georgia, and many other places in the globe poses a critical threat to the preservation of tangible and intangible heritage (Shydlovskyi et al. 2023; Shydlovskyi, Telizhenko, and Ivakin 2023; Ahmad 2022). This includes destruction, bombing, usage for military activity or looting. Among the most recent examples, the war in Ukraine and the Middle East crisis show that heritage became not only a silent victim of conflict but also a tool for whitewashing military actions towards civilians. Looted artifacts, in turn, often end up on the market, and the revenue helps to finance military operations. In early September 2024, shortly before the submission of the session abstract, artifacts from Sudanese museums began appearing on online auctions.

A basic principle in the practice of cultural resource management is that to be effective in protecting and managing any kind of heritage (from small objects to buildings, landscapes and including intangible cultural heritage), knowing what heritage you have is essential to safeguarding it. Even though various institution-led or community-based actions are being taken to document heritage before and after it is destroyed, unfortunately, it vanishes faster than any archaeologist or museologist can work. Therefore, there is a deep necessity for creating and sharing a common methodology for protecting and conserving heritage through digital methods and the ways such digital skills can be transferred/shared with institutions and professionals in regions affected by conflicts. This session intends to bring together researchers from areas affected by conflict and war, specialized in digital methods, and deeply concerned about the future of heritage. The session welcomes papers devoted to monitoring archaeological heritage in conflict zones focused on:

inventories and database for heritage preservation;

remote sensing (from satellite to unmanned aerial vehicles UAV):

photogrammetry and laser scanning;

citizen science.

S37: Computational and Landscape Archaeology in the renovation of surface survey methodologies

Session Organisers:
Arnau Garcia-Molsosa, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICAC)
Iban Berganzo-Besga, University of Toronto Mississauga
Hector A. Orengo, Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA) & Barcelona Supercomputing Center
Nazarij Buławka, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology; University of Warsaw

Session Format: Standard

Remains of artefacts, architecture and other features visible on the earth surface are one of the main instruments for archaeologists to understand how past human populations inhabited and transformed the environment. Beyond the more traditional objective of localizing the best sites to excavate, surface record can be exploited by itself for the analysis of past cultural phenomena at both local and/or regional levels.

In the study of this complex surface record, the development of geospatial conceptual frameworks, methods and technologies played a central role in how archaeologists record field data and analyse the resulting datasets (Wheatley and Gillings 2013). One outstanding example of this integration can be traced since the introduction of the concept of systematic pedestrian survey at regional-scale, with the measuring of pottery scatters as its main target. This approach has a strong development in Eastern Mediterranean (Knodell et al. 2023), and in Greece in particular, since the 1950s, with multiple projects active nowadays, some of them with a long tradition (Bintliff et al. 1999; Alock and Cherry 2004). Its historical development has been parallel an intertwined with the development of geospatial technologies, and GIS in particular.

At the same time, the use of aerial and then satellite imagery changed the way surveys were done. First, the application of aerial and satellite imagery along with geophysics allowed the mapping of the structures visible at the sites (Campana and Piro 2009). Secondly, conducting remote sensing research allowed the mapping of countless sites for field verification (Casana 2014; Banning 2002, 136). In recent years, there has been an accumulation of developments on geospatial technologies that are being tested in the context of archaeological survey workflows, followed by a process of integration in the common practices of survey teams.

The availability of geospatial data has been exponentially increasing: multi-temporal sequences of aerial imagery, high-resolution orthomaps, multi-spectral and radar datasets, and digitised collection of archival photographic and cartographic datasets, are just some examples. This have been accompanied with the creation of specific platforms and software that allow the processing of this enormous geospatial information. The increasing extended use of Machine-Learning based approaches in archaeology is having a strong impact, which can be tracked in recent CAA and other international meetings. Some researches have use ML and DL algorithms to assist in the mapping of features such artificial mounds (Menze & Ur 2012; Berganzo-Besga et al. 2021 & 2023; Garcia-Molsosa et al. 2021) or hydraulic infrastructure (Bulawka et al. 2024 a&b).

The appearance of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) has increased the resolution of captured imagery (Campana 2017), and given the archaeologists the capacity of capture information at the scale of specific archaeological features in large areas, something that was very costly until now, which limited works of Remote Sensing only to the study of large features that could be visible in large-scale images. Until recently, for example, it was not possible to use remote sensing to focus on the artifacts themselves. Thanks to the application of machine / deep learning with remote sensing, an opportunity for large-scale mapping pottery appeared (Orengo et al. 2021).

As this scale gap closes, the integration of multiple datasets, scales, techniques and sources in survey workflows, puts archaeological survey in front of a potential new step. In this session, we are inviting researchers interested in sharing how they are incorporating this new geospatial technologies to their surface surveys, and to discuss the current state of the art, and future perspectives for the application of computational methods in archaeological surveys.

At this session we would like to welcome every research on computational archaeology applied to field survey and the interpretation of surface datasets, in particular: