Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:37:19.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Off-Site Approach to Late Iron Age and Roman Landscapes on the Northern Plateau, Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Jesús García-Sánchez*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Cantabria, Spain
Miguel Cisneros*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Cantabria, Spain

Abstract

Since 2009, a large-scale archaeological field survey – the Ager Segisamonensis Survey Project – has been carried out on the Northern Plateau of the Iberian Peninsula, in the Burgos province (Castilla y León), Spain. The aim of this project is to understand the Iron Age/Roman transition in terms of settlement strategies and landscape exploitation. The field survey has been undertaken in the landscape surrounding an Iron Age settlement and the successive Roman city of Segisamo – modern Sasamón. The goal is not the discovery of new settlements, but the recognition of the so-called ‘dwelling landscape’ and its evolution. In this article, we highlight our field survey methodology based on hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) instruments and the creation of a recording system of ‘aggregation units'.

Au cours des trois dernières années, un programme régional de prospection au sol, le Ager Segisamonensis Survey Project, a été développé sur le plateau du nord de la péninsule ibérique (Burgos, Espagne). L'objectif de ce projet est de comprendre la transition entre Âge du Fer et époque romaine en ce qui concerne les stratégies d'implantation et l'exploitation du paysage. Les prospections ont été effectuées dans les alentours d'un village de l'Âge du Fer et de la ville romaine de Segisamo (aujourd'hui Sasamón, Burgos, Castilla y León) lui succédant. Le but n'est pas la découverte de nouveaux sites, mais la reconnaissance du supposé paysage d'habitation et de son évolution pendant l'ère de transition lors de la conquête romaine de la péninsule ibérique. Nous insistons sur l'importance de la méthodologie de prospection basée sur des instruments GPS portables et la création d'un système d'unités d'agrégation, qui vont de pair avec plusieurs résultats préliminaires obtenus par analyses statistiques. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

In den vergangenen drei Jahren wurde das Ager Segisamonensis Survey Project, ein Programm von Feldsurveys, in der nördlichen Meseta der Iberischen Halbinsel bei Burgos (Spanien) etabliert. Das Ziel dieses Projektes ist es, den Übergang von der Eisenzeit zur Römischen Epoche in Bezug auf Siedlungsstrategien und Landschaftsnutzung zu untersuchen. Die Feldbegehungen wurden in der Umgebung einer eisenzeitlichen Siedlung bzw. der späteren römischen Stadt Segisama, heute Sasamón (Burgos, Autonome Gemeinschaft Kastilien und León), durchgeführt. Das Ziel war dabei nicht die Entdeckung neuer Siedlungen, sondern das Erkennen der sog. Siedlungslandschaft und deren Entwicklung in der Übergangszeit der römischen Eroberung der Iberischen Halbinsel. Wir möchten weiterhin besonders die Feldsurveymethoden auf der Basis von GPS-Handgeräten und die Entwicklung eines System von Aggregationseinheiten herausheben, die eng mit einigen vorläufigen Ergebnissen statistischer Analysen verbunden sind. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abásolo, J.A. 1998. La Ciudad de Segisamo. In: Rodríguez-Colmenero, A., ed. Los Orígenes de la Ciudad en el Noroeste Hispánico. Actas del Congreso Internacional. Lugo: Diputación Provicincial de Luago, pp. 585–98.Google Scholar
Abásolo, J.A., García, R. 1993. Excavaciones en Sasamón (Burgos). Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 164. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.Google Scholar
Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. 1994. Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice and the Classical Landscape of Greece. In: Morris, I., ed. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–70.Google Scholar
Amrhein, C.G. 1995. Searching for the Elusive Aggregation Effect: Evidence from Statistical Simulations. Environment and Planning A, 27 (1): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariño, E., Rodriguez, J. 1997. El Poblamiento Romano y Visigodo en el Territorio de Salamanca. Datos de la Prospección Intensiva. Zephyrus, 50: 225–45.Google Scholar
Bevan, A., Conolly, J. 2002. GIS, Archaeological Survey and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology, 29 (1/2): 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, A., Conolly, J. 2009. Modelling Spatial Heterogeneity and Nonstationarity in Artifact-Rich Landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36 (4): 956–64.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. 2008. In Praise of the Ancestors. Catchment and Territory in Agricultural Landscapes: Revisiting the Birth of a Concept in the Light of Current Research in Landscape Archaeology. In: Gallou, C., Georgiadis, M., Muskett, G.M., eds. Dioskouroi. Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 216–27.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. 2009. Catchments, Settlement Chambers and Demography: Case Studies and General Theory in the Greek Landscape from Prehistory to Early Modern Times. In: Favory, F., Nuninger, L., eds. Archaedyn. 7 Millennia of Territorial Dynamics. Settlement Pattern, Production and Trades from Neolithic to Middle Ages. Dijon: University of Burgundy, pp. 107–77.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., Snodgrass, A. 1988. Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A Regional and Interregional Perspective. Current Anthropology, 29 (3): 506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J., Snodgrass, A., Howard, P. 2007. Testing the Hinterland: The Work of the Boeotia Survey (1989–1991) in the Southern Approaches to the City of Thespiai. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Blanton, R.E. 2001. Mediterranean Myopia. Antiquity, 75: 627–29.Google Scholar
Caraher, W.R., Nakassis, D., Pettegrew, D.K. 2006. Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-Rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern Corinthia, Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19 (1): 743.Google Scholar
Chayanov, A.V. 1986. The Theory of Peasant Economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., Mantzourani, E. 1991. Data Evaluation and Off-Site Distribution. In: Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., Mantzourani, E., eds. Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands. Monumenta Archaeologica. Los Angeles: University of California, pp. 3754.Google Scholar
Chisholm, M. 1970. Rural Settlement and Land Use. Chicago: Aldine Publications.Google Scholar
Cisneros, M., García-Sánchez, J., Hernández, I. 2011. Los Oppida del Sector Central de la Cordillera Cantábrica: Síntesis y Nuevas Investigaciones. Palaeohispanica, 11: 6183.Google Scholar
Clark, G.A., Straus, L.G. 1975. Preliminary Site Survey of the Meseta del Norte, Northern Burgos Province, Spain. Current Anthropology, 16 (2): 283–86.Google Scholar
Da Costa, M.L., Clara, D., Eleoterio, A.H., Da Trindade, J.R. 2004. The Ceramic Artifacts in Archaeological Black Earth (Terra Preta) from Lower Amazon Region, Brazil: Mineralogy. Acta Amazonica, 34 (3): 375–86.Google Scholar
Fentress, E. 2000. What are We Counting for? In: Francovich, R., Patterson, H., Barker, G., eds. Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 4452.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981a. Off-Site Archaeology: An Alternative Approach for the Short-Sited. In: Hodder, I., Isaac, G., Hammond, N., eds. Pattern of the Past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1335.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981b. A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 47: 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotheringam, A.S., Wong, D.W.S. 1991. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Environment and Planning A, 23 (7): 1025–44.Google Scholar
Gallant, T.W. 1986. ‘Background Noise’ and Site Definition: A Contribution to Survey Methodology. Journal of Field Archaeology, 13 (4): 403–18.Google Scholar
García-Sánchez, J. 2009. El Poblamiento y la Explotación del Paisaje en la Meseta Norte Entre la Edad del Hierro y Época Romana Altoimperial. Una Aproximación a Través de la Arqueología Espacial. Zephyrus, 59 (2): 8196.Google Scholar
Given, M. 2004a. Mapping and Manuring: Can We Compare Sherd Density Figures? In: Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F., eds. Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 1321.Google Scholar
Given, M. 2004b. From Density Counts to Ideational Landscapes: Intensive Survey, Phenomenology and the Sydeny Cyprus Survey Project. In: Athanasopoullou, E., Wandsnider, L., eds. Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 165–82.Google Scholar
Grau, I. 2011. Movimiento, Circulación y Caminos en el Paisaje Digital. In: Celestino, S., Mayoral, V., eds. Tecnologías de Información Geográfica y Análisis Arqueológico del Territorio. 7 a 10 de Noviembre de 2007. Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 59. Mérida: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, pp. 369–82.Google Scholar
Haselgrove, C. 1985. Inference from Ploughsoil Artefact Samples. In: Haselgrove, C., Millet, M., Smith, I., eds. Archaeology from the Ploughsoil. Studies in the Collection and Interpretation of Field Survey Data. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, pp. 729.Google Scholar
Heilen, M.P., Schiffer, M.B., Reid, J.J. 2008. Landscape Formation Processes. In: Bruno, D., Thomas, H., eds. Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Word Archaeological Congress. Research Handbooks in Archaeology, pp. 601–08.Google Scholar
Higgs, E.S. 1972. Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hingley, R. 2003. Recreating Coherence without Reinventing Romanization. Digressus Supplement, 1: 111–19.Google Scholar
Knowles, A.K. 2005. Emerging Trends in Historical GIS. Historical Geography, 33: 713.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, S.A. 1990. Merits of Full-Coverage Survey. Examples from the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In: Fish, S.K., Kowalewski, S.A., eds. The Archaeology of Regions. A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, Smithsonian's Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 3386.Google Scholar
Kuna, M., Zvelebil, M., Foster, P.J., Dreslerová, D. 1993. Field Survey and Landscape Archaeology Research Design. Methodology of a Regional Field Survey in Bohemia. Památky archeologické, 84: 110–30.Google Scholar
Lafferty, R.H.I. 1981. Distribution of Archaeological Materials. In: Lafferty, R.H.I., et al., eds. Settlement Predictions in Sparta: A Locational Analysis and Cultural Resource Assessment in the Uplands of Calhoun County, Arkansas. Research Series. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey, pp. 163206.Google Scholar
LaMotta, V.M., Schiffer, M.B. 1999. Formation Process of Household Assemblages. In: Allison, P., ed. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge, pp. 1929.Google Scholar
Mayoral, V., Cerrillo, E., Celestino, S. 2009. Métodos de Prospección Arqueológica Intensiva en el Marco de un Proyecto Regional: El Caso de la Comarca de La Serena (Badajoz). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 66 (1): 725.Google Scholar
Méndez, F. 1998. Definición y análisis de poblados de la Edad del Bronce. In: Fábregas, R., ed. A Idade do Bronce en Galicia: Novas Perspectivas. Sada: Ediciós do Castro, pp. 153–90.Google Scholar
Morillo, A. 2009. The Augustean Spanish Experience: The Origin of Limes System. Anejos de Gladius, 13: 239–52.Google Scholar
Orejas, A. 2002. El Territorio de las Civitates Peregrinas en los Tratados de agrimensura. Las Civitates del Noroeste Hispano. Habis, 33: 389406.Google Scholar
Poirier, N., Tolle, F. 2007. Measurements of Diachronic Stability of Agrarian Exploitation [online]. In: Posluschny, A., Lambers, K., Herzog, I., eds. Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference, Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 2007 [accssed 15 June 2012]. Bonn: Habelt. Available at: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/frontdoor.php?source_opus=567&la=de>.Google Scholar
Rhodes, P. 1950. The Celtic Field Systems on the Berkshire Downs. Oxiensia, 13: 128.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Stancic, Z., Gaffney, V. 1999. GIS Based Analysis of the Population Trends on the Island of Brac in Central Dalmatia. In: Gillings, M., Mattingly, D., van Dalen, J., eds. Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 8594.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N. 2004. Sample Size Matters! The Paradox of Global Trends and Local Surveys. In: Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F., eds. Side-By-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 3648.Google Scholar
Terrenato, N., Ammerman, A.J. 1996. Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology, 23 (1): 91109.Google Scholar
Van Joolen, E. 2003. Archaeological land evaluation. A reconstruction of the suitability of ancient landscapes for various land uses in Italy focused on the First Millennium B.C. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Van Leusen, P.M. 2002. Pattern to process: methodological investigations into the formation and interpretation of spatial patterns in archaeological landscapes. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Vicent, J.M. 1991. Fundamentos Teórico-Metodológicos para un Programa de Investigación Arqueo-Geográfica. In: López García, P., ed. El Cambio Cultural del IV al III Milenios a.C. en la Comarca del Noroeste de Murcia. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, pp. 29117.Google Scholar
Vita-Finzi, C., Higgs, E.S. 1970. Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site-Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 36: 137.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome's Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D. 1993. Going Over Old Ground: GIS, Archaeological Theory and the Act of Perception. In: Andresen, J., Madsen, T., Scollar, I., eds. Computing the Past: Proceedings of the 20th CAA Conference. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 133–37.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D., Gillings, M. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, T.J. 1982. The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive Sherd-Sampling Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9 (3): 323–33.Google Scholar
Witcher, R. 1999. GIS and Landscapes of Perception. In: Gillings, M., Mattingly, D., van Dalen, J., eds. Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 1322.Google Scholar
Witcher, R. 2006. Broken Pots and Meaningless Dots? Surveying the Rural Lanscape of Roman Italy. Papers of the British School at Rome, 74: 3972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, G. 2000. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Wendt, K.P., Hilpert, J. 2009. Landscape Archaeology in Central Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 75: 153.Google Scholar