PACHACAMAC GIS PROJECT: A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES

IN ANDEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

By

Go Matsumoto

B. A., Kanda University of International Studies, Japan, 1995

A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Master of Arts Degree

Department of Anthropology
in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
July 2005
Copyright by Go Matsumoto, 2005
All Rights Reserved
 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Go Matsumoto, for the Master of Arts degree in Anthropology, presented on July 1st,
2005, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

TITLE: Pachacamac GIS Project: A Practical Application of Geographic Information

Systems and Remote Sensing Techniques in Andean Archaeology
MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Izumi Shimada, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been intensively developed since their

origin in the early 1960s and employed for a variety of purposes both in academic and

commercial fields thereafter. Following in the steps of precocious applications in

disciplines such as forestry and hydrology, a handful of archaeologists began to employ

this useful tool for their analyses of spatial phenomena in the early 1980s. In Andean

archaeology, GIS together with related peripheral techniques (e.g., remote sensing and

GPS) have become increasingly popular, particularly among younger archaeologists who

recognize their ability to cope with a wide range of spatial scales and integrate multiple

types of data.

In accordance with the conceptual transitions of “space” and “landscape” and the

expansion of study area over time, GIS have been successfully integrated into the

archaeological methodology and even theoretical discussions. In the early 1980s when

GIS were first introduced into archaeology, there were two contrasting conceptions: the

i
processualistic spatiality (space as non-problematic abstract backdrop and landscape as

a palimpsest of material traces) on one hand, and the postprocessualistic backlash

against it, on the other. Correspondingly, GIS applications were also split broadly into two

separate directions: processualistic regional modeling studies and postprocessualistic

phenomenological reconstructions of past landscape. Backed up by theoretical and

methodological advancements in both geography and archaeology and active interactions

among archaeologists in professional meetings and on the web, each school of thought is

anticipated to go a long way in meeting their respective aims.

It is obvious that GIS and related peripheral techniques hold the promise for future

archaeological research. However, as the history of archaeological applications of

research tools borrowed from other fields foretells, their appropriateness and efficacy

need to be carefully assessed as their applications pose major conceptual and practical

challenges, not to mention a substantial amount of time, money, and technical expertise.

In this context, my case study to create GIS-based digital site maps of Pachacamac, which

was a part of the on-going long-term archaeological project on the central coast of Peru

(Pachacamac Archaeological Project) was aimed at scrutinizing the potential and

limitations of GIS and remote sensing techniques for archaeology and offering guidelines

for the most efficient way to use them given resource limitations that commonly confront

archaeologists. Although some geographers tend to overdramatize the potentials of GIS,

ii
contemplation on the nature of archaeological research and associated limitations

exposes the complexity of archaeological applications of GIS and will bring archaeologists

back to stark reality. Archaeologists usually have to select most cost-efficient techniques

depending on their research objectives and available resources. The first step to apply GIS

in archaeology in general needs to be taken considering the gap between the theories and

our reality before us. Using the preparation of the GIS-based site map of Pachacamac as

a case study, this thesis illustrates how we can bridge the gap between the theoretical

potential of GIS on one hand, and constraints of archaeological reality, on the other. It

shows how multiple layers of data as well as both analog and digital spatial data can be

effectively integrated in the first digital map of Pachacamac to be produced.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank Dr. Izumi Shimada who have provided me with

unstinting supports over the past few years and offered me a valuable opportunity to

participate in his new project at the site of Pachacamac. Without his supports, my thesis

would not have been possible. My committee members, Dr. Susan Ford and Dr. Andrew

Balkansky, also gave me a series of invaluable advices and insights.

I received generous assistance from many people during the fieldwork in Peru as well.

Señora Hide Higa de Calderon and Maria del Pilar Garcia Caycho served PAP project

members with daily culinary delights, and Señor Hugo Tsuda and his family tickled my

heart with amusing conversations and some Japanese food. Lic. Rafael Segura, the

co-director of PAP and my roommate during the fieldwork, and other project members

welcomed me with open arms. I thank all of their generosity and hospitality.

I also thank Dr. Hartmut Tschauner (Seoul National University, Korea) who loaned

me his own RTK Differential GPS. He devoted himself not only to give me an on-site

instruction as to how to operate the equipment, but also helped me with GCP

measurements and took charge of attendant data post-processing. During the

measurement processes, Dr. Ursel Wagner (Technische Universität München, Germany)

assisted me as well. I appreciate her valuable advices.

iv
 Many procedures of map production described in Chapter 5 could not have been

accomplished without the understanding and cooperation of the Department of

Geography, Earth Resources Project (ERP) program, and Library Affairs, SIUC.

Topography maps were scanned utilizing the facilities in the ERP laboratory, and aerial

photographs were processed using ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6 and ArcGIS 8.3 (ArcInfo License)

in the Spatial Environmental Analysis Laboratory (SEAL). Plotting the prototype base

map prior to the fieldwork in the summer of 2004 was completed using the plotter in the

Graduate Assistant Laboratory of the Department of Geography. I thank for their

generous support Dr. Tony Oyana, Dr. Xu Gang, Dr. Wanxiao Sun, Girmay Misgna, and

Daniel K. Davie.

I have also received generous support of many of my friends and former mentors.

Especially while I was on a leave of absence from the SIUC, they have given me spurs and,

at other times, tranquility to my mind. My special thanks go to Yasuyuki Kosuge, Hitoshi

Kurazono, Tomohiro Nagai, Kazuyuki Kurihata, Kengo Kaji, Steve Juzwik, Junko Eccles,

and Dr. Misato Tokunaga.

Last but not least, I thank my dear son Shinnosuke and beloved helpmate Akiyo.

They have always been cheerful and extended me moral supports. Without their

encouragement, understanding, and support, not only my thesis but also the

reinstatement of my graduate study at the SIUC would not have been possible.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: SPATIO-TEMPORAL THINKING IN ARCHAEOLOGY .................................. 7

2.1. Germination of Spatial Thinking ..………………………………….…….................. 7
2.2. Environmental Determinism, Chronology, and Diffusionism …….................. 10
2.3. Pursuits of Context, Function, and Process .................................................. 14
2.4. Quantification of Spatiality ………................................................................. 18
2.5. “Meaningful Space” and Postprocessual Reasoning ...................................... 22

CHAPTER 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF GIS ……………..…...................... 26

3.1. What are GIS? .…………………………………………………………….……............. 27
3.1.1. Data Structure Models ……............................................................... 29
3.1.2. Merits of GIS for Archaeologists ..…................................................... 35
3.1.3. GIS as an “Analytical Toolbox” …....................................................... 38
3.2. Major Analytical Methods of GIS Applications …........................................... 40
3.2.1. Predictive Modeling ………………………………..................................... 41
3.2.2. Postprocessual Orientation ……………..…………................................. 42
3.3. Future Prospects of GIS Applications ……….…….......................................... 44
3.3.1. Post-Postprocessual Approach to Landscape ..................................... 44
3.3.2. Macro-Regional Paradigm ……..………………...................................... 45

CHAPTER 4: PACHACAMAC DIGITAL MAPPING ......................................................... 49

4.1. Settings ...................................................................................................... 51
4.2. Objectives of My Digital Site Mapping ........................................................... 56
4.2.1. Short- and Long-Term Objectives ...................................................... 57
4.2.2. Struggles against Tight Budgets ..…..……………….............................. 61

vi
CHAPTER 5: PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 65
5.1. Phase I: Prototype Map Creation .................................................................. 65
5.1.1. Preparation of Topography Map ........................................................ 73
5.1.2. Orthorectification of Aerial Photographs .......………........................... 80
5.1.3. On-screen Digitizing ………………………………………........................ 100
5.2. Phase II: Ground-Truth Checking and GPS Measurements ………...…….….. 107
5.3. Phase III: Data Post-Processing and Consummation of the Final Maps …….. 113
5.3.1. Data Post-Processing of GPS Readings ............................................ 115
5.3.2. Creation of a New DEM ................................................................... 123
5.3.3. Deuter-Orthorectification of Aerial Photographs .............................. 127
5.3.4. Spatial Adjustment of Vector Datasets ............................................ 133
5.3.5. Clean Copies of Field Drawings ....................................................... 136

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................... 139

6.1. Two Broad Categories of Mapping Techniques ............................................ 140
6.2. Concomitant Use of Old and New Data Sources .......................................... 142
6.3. Tight Budget and “GIS-Phobia” .................................................................. 145
6.4. Limited Availability of Appropriate Training ...……...................................... 146
6.5. Bridging the Contrasting Approaches ………………..………........................... 148

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 152

7.1. Broader Significance to Andean Archaeology …………................................. 152
7.2. In the Near Future ......………………………………………................................ 155

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 158

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: HARDWARES AND SOFTWARES ........................................................ 187
APPENDIX B: PROCEDURES MANUAL …………........................................................ 188
B.1. How to georeference a scanned image ........................................................ 188
B.2. How to clip and combine together parts of raster images ............................. 196
B.3. How to define projection and plane coordinate system ……………………....... 201
B.4. How to reproject a raster image ………………………….….............................. 203
B.5. How to clip a subset from raster image ………………………........................... 207
B.6. How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs (Phase I) ..……. 208
B.7. How to digitize ground features in orthophotos and topography map ..…….. 225
B.8. How to change projection and coordinate system ….................................... 231
B.9. How to create a new DEM out of multipoint and line features ...................... 236

vii
 B.10. How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs through
an automated DTM extraction (Phase III) .......................................................... 239
APPENDIX C: FIELD DRAWINGS .............................................................................. 251
APPENDIX D: DIGITIZED MAPS ............................................................................... 289
APPENDIX E: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION ............................................................. 309
E.1. Triangulation Report (Phase I) ……........................................................... 309
E.2. Triangulation Report (Phase III) ………........................................................ 313

VITA ........................................................................................................................ 322

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Relative advantages of raster and vector representations (Taken from
Longley et al. 2001:75) ……………………………………………………….……………………… 32

Table 5-1. Ground Control Points (GCPs) for geometric error correction ……………....… 99

Table 5-2. The dBASE table of attributes for GPS readings ..……………………………… 117

Table A-1. List of hardware and software utilized ……………………………………………. 187

Table B-1. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 30-K .……………………………… 192

Table B-2. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 30-L ..……………………………… 193

Table B-3. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 31-K ....……………..…………….. 194

Table B-4. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 31-L ...….…………………………. 195

Table B-5. The extent of the scanned map images …………………. ………………………. 197

Table B-6. The four hypothetical fiducials ................................................................ 213

Table B-7. The 10 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase I) .......................... 219

Table B-8. The 21 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase III) ........................ 240

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Squier’s plan of the Palace of the Virgins of the Sun, Island of Coati,
Lake Titicaca, 1877 (Taken from Squier 1877:361) ……………………..…………................ 9

Figure 2-2. Uhle’s section view of the cemetery at the foot and under the base of
the Painted Temple, 1903 (Taken from Uhle 1903:19, Figure 3-5) …………………………… 9

Figure 3-1. The logical subsystem model of GIS originally put forward by Marble (1990)
(Taken from Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 11, Figure 1.2 and partially modified) ..……… 28

Figure 3-2. A GIS overlay consisting of GPS measurements, archaeological structures,

contour lines, aerial photograph, and Digital Elevation Model (from top to bottom) …… 32

Figure 3-3. Vector representations of geographic features ……..…………………………… 34

Figure 3-4. Raster representation of a geographic feature …………..……………………… 34

Figure 4-1. The vicinity of the archaeological site of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:39,000) …. 52

Figure 4-2. The archaeological site of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:10,000) …………………... 55

Figure 4-3. Max Uhle’s site map of Pachacamac, 1903 (Taken from Uhle 1903) …..…… 58

Figure 4-4. Adolph Bandelier’s ground plan of Pachacamac, 1892 (Taken from
Shimada 1991:XV, XIX, plate 1 and deliberately inverted for comparison with
Figure 4-3 above) ....................................................................................................... 58

Figure 4-5. A site map sold at the site museum ……………………………………………….. 60

Figure 5-1. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico
Nacional, Peru (30-k, A.H. JULIO C. TELLO) ……………………………………………………. 66

Figure 5-2. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico
Nacional, Peru (30-l, A.H. PAMPA GRANDE) ………………………………………………….… 67

x
Figure 5-3. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico
Nacional, Peru (31-k, RUINAS DE PACHACAMAC) ...................................................... 68

Figure 5-4. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico
Nacional, Peru (31-l, LURÍN) ....................................................................................... 69

Figure 5-5. Aerial photograph taken on March 12th 1957 by Servicio Aerofotográfico
Nacional, Peru (Proyecto 6512-57-5, 626) …………………………………………………….… 70

Figure 5-6. Aerial photograph taken on March 12th 1957 by Servicio Aerofotográfico
Nacional, Peru (Proyecto 6512-57-5, 649) …………………………………………………….… 71

Figure 5-7. The work flow of prototype map creation ……………………………………….… 72

Figure 5-8. Examples of the points where GCPs were located ……………………………… 76

Figure 5-9. Methods of resampling (Taken from Lo and Yeung 2002:146) .……………… 78

Figure 5-10. Aerial photographs 626 and 649 seem to have been taken
at different times and thus do not compose a stereopair .……………………………………. 82

Figure 5-11. Internal geometry of aerial photographs: (a) single photographs 626
and 649; (b) a stereopair with 60percent overlap; (c) a fiducial mark; and (d) a 3D
representation (Taken from Jensen 2000:142-143, Figure 6-5 and 6-6, and
partially modified) …………………………………………………………………………………..… 83

Figure 5-12. Comparative geometry of (a) a map and (b) a vertical aerial photograph
(Taken from Lillesand et al. 2004:142, Figure 3-8, and partially modified) ………………. 84

Figure 5-13. File and image coordinate systems (Taken from Leica Geosystems GIS
& Mapping Division 2002b:29, Figure 3-13, and partially modified) .……………………. 84

Figure 5-14. (a) Collinearity condition and (b) space intersection (Taken from
Lillesand et al. 2004:180, Figure 3-.32 and 3.33, and partially modified) ………………… 87

Figure 5-15. The WRS Path/Row scene boundaries of DEM mosaic at the periphery
of Pachacamac ..……………………………………………………………………....................... 90

xi
Figure 5-16. The only document available for the orthorectification process in lieu of
regular camera calibration reports (INFORME TECNICO FOTOGRAFICO) …………………… 93

Figure 5-17. Data Strip of photograph 649 that consists of level bubble, clock,
altimeter, and focal length …………………………….………………………………………….… 96

Figure 5-18. Coordinate information of the datum located allegedly on the top of
the Temple of the Sun, provided by Instituto Geográfico Nacional, Peru …………………. 96

Figure 5-19. The “Identify Results” dialog window …………………..……………………..… 98

Figure 5-20. Ten Ground Control Points collected from topography map (X, Y
coordinates) and SRTM DEM (Z coordinate) and plotted over the orthorectified
aerial photographs 626 and 649 …………………………………………………………………… 98

Figure 5-21. Superposition of topography map over the orthophoto (649) ..…..………. 101

Figure 5-22. A comparison of two images of Templo Viejo in the original,

scanned aerial photograph 649 (a) and in a processed photograph by means of
a simple image adjustment (b) ……………………………………………………………………. 105

Figure 5-23. Prototype base map layers of Pachacamac .………………………………….. 106

Figure 5-24. Prototype site map of Pachacamac .……………………………………………. 108

Figure 5-25. Leica Geosystems, GS20 Professional Data Mappers,

Reference Station (near) and Rover Receiver (far), by courtesy of
Hartmut Tschauner (Seoul National University, Korea) …………………………………..... 110

Figure 5-26. A reference point and 23 GCPs measured by an RTK Differential GPS …. 114

Figure 5-27. The work flow of post-fieldwork data post-processing (Phase III) ...……… 116

Figure 5-28. The relationships between earth’s irregular surface, ellipsoid, and
geoid (Taken from Lo and Yeung 2002:35 and modified) .…………………………………... 120

Figure 5-29. Displacements between DGPS-measured points and the corresponding

points in the orthophotos resampled with SRTM-arc3 DEM ………………………………. 121

xii
Figure 5-30. DGPS-measured points, elevation points, and contour lines ..…………... 124

Figure 5-31. Comparison of three newly created DEMs .…………………………………… 126

Figure 5-32. 3D representations of the site area: (a) aerial photograph 649
orthorectified using DGPS readings and Digital Terrain Model (DTM); (b) DTM
extracted from the stereopair of aerial photographs 626 and 649; and (c) quality
of DTM. Contour lines are superimposed over the images for reference ………………… 130

Figure 5-33. Displacements between Ground Control Points (DGPS measurements)

and the corresponding points in the orthophotos resampled with 10-by-10 m DEM ... 131

Figure 5-34. Displacements between Ground Control Points (DGPS measurements)

and the corresponding points in the orthophotos resampled with extracted DTM ....... 132

Figure 5-35. An example of twisted walls (The Convent of Mamacona) ….……………… 135

Figure 5-36. Field drawings were drawn fairly on transparent graph papers
superimposed over printed shapefiles for reference .………………………………………… 137

Figure B-1. A warning message ………………...…………..…………………………………… 188

Figure B-2. The “Georeferencing” toolbar of ArcMap ……………..…………………………188

Figure B-3. Locating the control point …………………………………………………………. 189

Figure B-4. The 49 defined control points marked by red crosshairs ....………………… 190

Figure B-5. The table list of defined control points ……..…………………………………… 191

Figure B-6. The “Spatial Analyst” toolbar of ArcMap ..……………………………………… 196

Figure B-7. The Raster Calculator ..…………………………..………………………………… 197

Figure B-8. The resultant GRID image after calculation process ...………………………. 198

Figure B-9. All of the resultant GRID images displayed in the same map
display window ………………………………………………………………………………………. 199

xiii
Figure B-10. The Raster Calculator merging all of the clipped image datasets into
a large GRID image .………………………………………………………………………………… 200

Figure B-11. A new image dataset consisting of the four clipped GRID images ……..… 200

Figure B-12. The Define Projection Wizard (coverages, grids, TINs) .…………………….. 201

Figure B-13. A dialog message prompting to build pyramids ...…………………………… 202

Figure B-14. The resultant GRID dataset of topography map scanned, georeferenced,
and projected ..………………………………………………………………………………………. 203

Figure B-15. The ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6 main menu bar .…………………………………… 204

Figure B-16. The “Reproject Images” dialog window ………………………………………... 204

Figure B-17. The “Projection Chooser” dialog window ..………………………………….… 205

Figure B-18. The “Reproject Images” dialog window ………………………………………... 206

Figure B-19. The input DEM displayed in a Viewer and the “Inquire Box”
dialog window .……………………………………………………………………………………….. 207

Figure B-20. The “Subset” dialog window ................................................................. 208

Figure B-21. The “Model Setup” dialog window ......................................................... 209

Figure B-22. The “Projection Chooser” dialog window ............................................... 210

Figure B-23. The “Set Frame-Specific Information” dialog window ............................ 211

Figure B-24. The OrthoBASE Pro main window ........................................................ 211

Figure B-25. The OrthoBASE Pro main window (Pyramids created) ........................... 212

Figure B-26. The “Camera Information” dialog window ............................................. 213

Figure B-27. The Viewer Fiducial Locator ................................................................. 214

xiv
Figure B-28. Fiducial Orientations ........................................................................... 214

Figure B-29. The Fiducial Locator ............................................................................ 215

Figure B-30. Measured fiducials and RMSE ............................................................. 216

Figure B-31. Exterior Information ............................................................................ 217

Figure B-32. The “Point Measurement (Left view: 626.tif Right view: 649.tif)”
window ......…………………………………………………………………………………….......... 218

Figure B-33. The 10 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase I) ...................... 219

Figure B-34. Tie Points to be automatically computed .…………................................. 220

Figure B-35. The “Triangulation Summary” dialog window ....................................... 221

Figure B-36. Triangulation Report ........................................................................... 222

Figure B-37. The OrthoBASE Pro main window (Triangulation completed) ................ 222

Figure B-38. The “Ortho Resampling” dialog window (Phase I) ................................... 223

Figure B-39. The “Add Single Output” dialog window ................................................ 224

Figure B-40. The status dialog window ..................................................................... 224

Figure B-41. The resultant orthoimages 626 and 649 (Phase I) ................................. 225

Figure B-42. The ArcCatalog main window ............................................................... 226

Figure B-43. The “Create New Shapefile” dialog window ............................................ 226

Figure B-44. The “Spatial Reference Properties” dialog window ................................. 227

Figure B-45. The two orthoimages and topography map ........................................... 229

Figure B-46. The “Editor” toolbar of ArcMap ............................................................. 229

xv
Figure B-47. On-screen digitizing ............................................................................ 230

Figure B-48. Project Wizard (shapefiles, geodatabase) .............................................. 231

Figure B-49. Selection of the input shapefile ............................................................ 232

Figure B-50. The “Spatial Reference Properties” dialog window ................................. 233

Figure B-51. The “Geographic Coordinate System Transformations” dialog window ... 233

Figure B-52. Selection of the geographic transformation(s) ....................................... 234

Figure B-53. Coordinate extents for the output dataset ............................................ 235

Figure B-54. DGPS points superimposed over the orthophoto 649 ……………………… 235

Figure B-55. The “3D Surfacing” dialog window ........................................................ 236

Figure B-56. The “Input Data” dialog window (Point Data to be read out) ................... 237

Figure B-57. The 3D coordinate information of DGPS points ..................................... 237

Figure B-58. The “Input Data” dialog window (Breakline Data to be read out) ............ 238

Figure B-59. The “Surfacing” dialog window ............................................................. 239

Figure B-60. The 21 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase III) .................... 241

Figure B-61. The “DTM Extraction” dialog window .................................................... 242

Figure B-62. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“General” tab) ............. 243

Figure B-63. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Image Pair” tab) ......... 244

Figure B-64. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Area Selection” tab) ... 245

Figure B-65. The region to be excluded .................................................................... 246

xvi
Figure B-66. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Accuracy” tab) .......... 247

Figure B-67. OrthoBASE Pro main window (DTM extraction completed) .................... 248

Figure B-68. The “Ortho Resampling” dialog window (Phase III) ................................ 249

Figure B-69. The resultant orthoimages 626 and 649 (Phase III) ............................... 250

Figure C-1. The 36 quadrangles of field drawings (Scale = 1:8,500) ............................ 252

Figure C-2. The Painted Temple (Scale = 1:700) ........................................................ 253

Figure C-3. The Old Temple of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:800) ....................................... 254

Figure C-4. Miscellaneous Structure A (Scale = 1:550) …………………........................ 255

Figure C-5. Cemetery A (Scale = 1:500) .………………………………………..................... 256

Figure C-6. South Entrance to Sector I (Scale = 1:600) .......………............................. 257

Figure C-7. Miscellaneous Structure B (Scale = 1:500) ..…………………...................... 258

Figure C-8. Cemetery B (Scale = 1:700) ...……………………………………...................... 259

Figure C-9. Miscellaneous Structure C (Scale = 1:800) .…………………....................... 260

Figure C-10. Miscellaneous Structure D (Scale = 1:500) …………………..................... 261

Figure C-11. Miscellaneous Structure E or Eeckhout’s “B14” (Scale = 1:650) .…........ 262

Figure C-12. Miscellaneous Structure F or Eeckhout’s “B13” (Scale = 1:650) .……..… 263

Figure C-13. Miscellaneous Structure G or Eeckhout’s “B12” (Scale = 1:600) ............ 264

Figure C-14. Miscellaneous Structure H or Eeckhout’s “B11” (Scale = 1:500) ............ 265

Figure C-15. Miscellaneous Structure I or Eeckhout’s “B10” (Scale = 1:500) .............. 266

xvii
Figure C-16. Pukio A and Miscellaneous Structure J (Scale = 1:700) .…..................... 267

Figure C-17. Miscellaneous Structure K (Scale = 1:700) ..…..……………..................... 268

Figure C-18. South Entrance to the Pilgrims’ Plaza (Scale = 1:400) ............................ 269

Figure C-19. “Ushnu” (Scale = 1:600) ..………………………………………...................... 270

Figure C-20. The Pilgrims’ Plaza (Scale = 1: 950) ..…………………………..................... 271

Figure C-21. Miscellaneous Structure L (West) (Scale = 1:700) ..…………................... 272

Figure C-22. Miscellaneous Structure L (East) (Scale = 1:700) ..………....................... 273

Figure C-23. The Pyramid With Ramp XIII (Scale = 1:550) .………………..................... 274

Figure C-24. The Pyramid With Ramp XII (Scale = 1:600) ………………….................... 275

Figure C-25. Miscellaneous Structure M (Scale = 1:550) .......…………....................... 276

Figure C-26. Miscellaneous Structure N or Eeckhout’s “B3” (Scale = 1:800) …........... 277

Figure C-27. Miscellaneous Structure O (Scale = 1:700) ....………………..................... 278

Figure C-28. The House of the Quipus (Scale = 1:600) ...…………………...................... 279

Figure C-29. The Palace of Tauri Chumpi (Scale = 1:800) ...……………....................... 280

Figure C-30. Miscellaneous Structure P (Scale = 1:600) ......……………...................... 281

Figure C-31. Miscellaneous Structure Q (Scale = 1:500) ...…..…………....................... 282

Figure C-32. Miscellaneous Structure R (Scale = 1:500) .......…………........................ 283

Figure C-33. Miscellaneous Structure S (Scale = 1:600) ....………………..................... 284

Figure C-34. Pukio B (Scale = 1:600) .....................…..……………………..................... 285

xviii
Figure C-35. Miscellaneous Structure T (Scale = 1:600) .....……………....................... 286

Figure C-36. Miscellaneous Structure U (Scale = 1:500) ......……………...................... 287

Figure C-37. Pukio C (Scale = 1:500) ..………………………………………....................... 288

Figure D-1. The 18 quadrangles of digitized maps (Scale = 1:8,500) ........................... 290

Figure D-2. The Painted Temple (Scale = 1:750) ........................................................ 291

Figure D-3. The Old Temple of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:1,200) .................................... 292

Figure D-4. The Temple of the Sun (Scale = 1:1,500) ................................................. 293

Figure D-5. The Pilgrims’ Plaza and Pukio A (Scale = 1:2,200) ................................... 294

Figure D-6. The Convent of Mamacona (Scale = 1:900) .............................................. 295

Figure D-7. The Palace of Tauri Chumpi (Scale = 1:800) …......................................... 296

Figure D-8. The Temple of the Monkey (Scale = 1:800) .............................................. 297

Figure D-9. The Pyramid With Ramp I (Scale = 1:800) ............................................... 298

Figure D-10. The Pyramid With Ramp II (Scale = 1:800) ............................................ 299

Figure D-11. The Pyramid With Ramp III (Scale = 1:900) ........................................... 300

Figure D-12. The Pyramid With Ramp IV and Pukio C (Scale = 1:800) ........................ 301

Figure D-13. The Pyramid With Ramp V and VIII (Scale = 1:800) ............................... 302

Figure D-14. The Pyramid With Ramp VI (Scale = 1:900) ........................................... 303

Figure D-15. The Pyramid With Ramp VII (Scale = 1:1,000) ....................................... 304

Figure D-16. The Pyramid With Ramp IX (Scale = 1:600) ........................................... 305

xix
Figure D-17. The Pyramid With Ramp XI, XIV, and the House of the Quipus
(Scale = 1:900) ..……………………………………………………………….…………………….. 306

Figure D-18. The Pyramid With Ramp XII (Scale = 1:800) .......................................... 307

Figure D-19. The Pyramid With Ramp XIII (Scale = 1:650) ......................................... 308

xx
 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In Andean archaeology, GIS and related peripheral technologies have been used by

only a handful of archaeologists such as Mark Aldenderfer (Aldenderfer 1996, 2001),

Nathan Craig (Craig 2000; Craig and Aldenderfer 2003), and Patrick Ryan Williams

(Williams 2002, 2003; Williams et al. 2003) until recently. However, we see signs that it is

becoming increasingly popular, particularly among younger archaeologists who recognize

its ability to cope with a wide range of spatial scales and to integrate or layer multiple

types of data. For example, at the 33rd Annual Midwest Conference on Andean and

Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory at the University of Missouri, Columbia on

February 26 and 27, 2005, two out of 29 papers presented were based on archaeological

applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing techniques.

Billman et al. (2005) discussed the results of their 2004 Field Season at Cerro León, an

inferred Early Intermediate Period Mochica colony in the upper reaches of the Moche

Valley. They use GIS-based digital maps for plotting the sites distributed within the Valley.

Billman and his graduate students are now transferring into GIS geodatabase the

conventional site distribution data accumulated through their settlement pattern studies

and basically based on hardcopy maps (Billman 2005, personal communication). Ruiz et

al. (2005), on the other hand, focused their attention to more methodological aspect of
 2

GIS and demonstrated its capability of combining data collected at different scales. They

presented isometric three-dimensional maps of 13 Late Archaic sites in the Norte Chico

region which were created from a combination of data acquired with Total Station, Global

Positioning System (GPS), and aerial photographs. The isometric maps were used for a

simple spatial analysis to calculate the volumes of the mounds.

The ongoing integration of GIS and many different data sources such as remote

sensing techniques and the interactions among archaeologists in professional meetings

and on the web (e.g., the gisarch listserve and Archaeology Discussion Conference at

http://forums.esri.com/forums.asp?c=87) have accelerated this exciting trend. Although

it is obvious that these relatively new inventions hold the promise for future

archaeological research, the history of archaeological applications of research tools

borrowed from other fields implies that it would take a substantial amount of time and

money for us to fully assess their appropriateness and efficacy. In fact this thesis

scrutinizes their potential and limitations and offers guidelines for the most efficient way

to use them in the context of resource limitations.

GIS have been highly developed since their origin in the early 1960s and employed

for a variety of purposes thereafter. Many precocious disciplines such as forestry and

hydrology have adopted this technology by tailoring it to their specific requirements.

Following in the steps of these disciplines, a handful of archaeologists began to use this

useful tool for their analyses of spatial phenomena in the early 1980s. In the first half of

this thesis (Chapter 2 and 3), I will critically review the history of spatio-temporal analysis
 3

in archaeology and archaeological applications of GIS and related techniques to discuss

how these new inventions have been integrated into the archaeological methodology and

even theoretical discussions.

In the early stages of GIS application in American archaeology, predictive modeling

of site location was most common, particularly in Cultural Resource Management (CRM).

In the 1990s, the modeling studies became more sophisticated and began to consider the

spatial distribution of archaeological remains in terms of variables other than

environmental features. Maschner (1996:5-13) sketches out several spatial analyses

available for GIS-based archaeology. They involve cost surface analysis, viewshed

analysis, optimum path analysis, site catchment analysis, boundary definition analysis,

and so forth. The most attractive to archaeologists may be viewshed or line-of-sight (LOS)

analysis. This “3D-GIS-based” approach helps archaeologists examine the actual view of

prehistoric people and explore their perception of landscapes, putting a greater focus on

social and cognitive aspects of prehistoric human behavior. Like the theoretical trajectory

that American archaeology itself has followed, one of the current trends of GIS application

in archaeology is also heading for a postprocessual orientation. Further, GIS are readily

anticipated to proceed to a more advanced stage such as Forte’s (2003) attempt for

post-postprocessualistic reconstruction and interpretation of ancient landscape through

Virtual Reality (VR).

With their ability to deal with a wide range of scales, GIS are fully compatible with

different levels of data management and spatial analyses: within-structure, within-site,

 4

and between-site levels (Clarke 1977). Craig and Aldenderfer (2003) argue, for instance,

that real-time data recording at within-structure level is an important agenda for GIS

applications in archaeology. There has been no agreement among archaeologists so far as

to how within-site and within-structure objects should be registered and stored in GIS

data layers for future analytical purpose. However, the level at which GIS can be most

effective would be a macro level beyond the inter-site level (e.g., inter-valley and

coast-versus-highland levels in Andean regions). While archaeologists have taken

advantage of bird’s-eye views by means of aerial photography since Kosok’s first large

scale use in the 1940s, the integration of satellite imagery and regional site databases will

offer much larger, macro-regional perspectives. In this regard, as Billman and Feinman

(1999) acknowledge the feasibility of GIS application for their studies in the Americas,

settlement pattern study based on regional full-coverage surveys may be one of the major

potential fields of application. This new trend is in synchrony with the macro-regional

paradigm in Mesoamerican archaeology proposed by Balkansky (in press). I envisage that

GIS application will be a critical component for any future macro-regional studies. This is

another direction for future development of GIS-based archaeology.

Before the revolutionary introduction of GIS to archaeology in the early 1980s, the

most widely used tool for the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological

data was distribution maps on which the spatial dimension was plotted by hand. It is

generally said that one of the most important benefits from GIS application in archaeology

is that GIS alleviate a huge burden on making distribution maps and avoid a series of
 5

human errors by hand (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:18). GIS allow for major data addition,

modification, and deletion in the manner that has not been possible with traditional

manual mapping methods. Supported by vital capabilities of GIS, as a result, the role of

distribution maps dramatically changed from a stand-alone data layer upon which

interpretations were based to a foundational data summary or stepping-stone for further

detailed analyses. Thus, the timesaving technology provides archaeologists with much

more time to spend for analyses and interpretations.

The time efficiency and succinctness of GIS-based digital mapping and data

management are theoretically true, but in reality, making maps is not an easy task.

Previous major studies (Allen et al. [eds.] 1990; Aldenderfer and Maschner [eds.] 1996;

Forte and Williams [eds.] 2003; Gaffney and Stančič 1991; Maschner [ed.] 1996; Westcott

and Brandon [eds.] 2000; Wheatley and Gillings 2002) put their primary foci upon the

analytical capabilities of GIS, which are thought to be the true worth of the technology,

and attempted to brush up on the analytical methods of conventional spatial archaeology

originally introduced by pioneering works such as Hodder and Orton (1976) and Clarke

(1977). None of them, however, discuss mapping procedures in details. As with the cases

in other regions of the world, in the Andes there is no ready-to-use digital map for

archaeological use. Although archaeologists are required to produce their own maps,

constraints such as data scarcity and limited resources will complicate the issues.

In the second half of my thesis (Chapter 4 and 5), consequently, I will refer to my

GIS-based digital site mapping, which is a part of the on-going long-term archaeological
 6

project on the central coast of Peru, Pachacamac Archaeological Project (PAP), directed by

Dr. Izumi Shimada (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale). One significance of my

map production is that it demonstrates the extent to which we can rely on GIS and related

remote sensing techniques to efficiently create high-quality maps given resource

limitations. The first step to apply new technological inventions in archaeology needs to

be taken considering the gap between the theories and our reality before us.

My GIS-based site mapping consists of three phases: (1) prototype map preparation

based on the resources available prior to the fieldwork in the summer of 2004; (2)

ground-truth checking of the archaeological architectures and Ground Control Point

(GCP) measurements by means of a leading-edge Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS

(RTK DGPS) of the highest accuracy; and (3) data post-processing and consummation of

the final maps. The procedures of each phase will be summarized in Appendix (B). Finally,

I will conclude my thesis by discussing implications and insights that I obtained from GIS

application to the PAP and broader significance of my mapping to Andean archaeology

(Chapter 6 and 7).

 7

CHAPTER 2: SPATIO-TEMPORAL THINKING IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeological artifacts, features, structures, and sites are found somewhere in

space with no exceptions and thus there are spatial relationships among them. Once they

are uncovered by archaeologists with appropriate field methods, they are given spatial

and temporal attributes, more specifically, X, Y, and Z coordinates. In so doing, since the

time of A. H. L. F. Pitt-Rivers in the late 19th century (Pitt-Rivers 1887, 1888, 1892, 1898),

archaeologists have employed plan and section views to help understand relative

positioning and temporal sequence of those findings. Tracing back to the historical origin

of archaeological interest in spatio-temporal components, in this and following chapters,

I review its development over time and discuss how GIS came to be integrated into the

methodological and theoretical developments of archaeology.

2.1. Germination of Spatial Thinking

Until the late 19th century, archaeology had not secured its place as a full-fledged

discipline. Many of those who chose to specialize in “archaeology” had been trained in the

physical and biological sciences. These 19th-century “archaeologists” (e.g., Sven Nilsson

[1868] and Gabriel de Mortillet [1897]) made efforts to bring in their own expertise and to
 8

borrow many other theories and methods from a wide variety of disciplines in order to

strengthen the claim of archaeology as a systematic scientific discipline: Jean Lamarck’s

evolutionary theory, Charles Lyell’s principles of geology, Franz Boas’

anthropo-geography, and so forth (McGee and Warms 1996:6-7, 128-129; Trigger

1989:16-17, 92-93; Willey and Sabloff 1993:38-39). As a result, methodologically

speaking, these internal and external enlightenments finally took the form of basic

methods of archaeological research such as General Pitt-Rivers’ invention of new field

methods and Sir Flinders Petrie’s seriation based on meticulous stratigraphic excavations

and artifact analysis (Petrie 1899; Pitt-Rivers 1887, 1888, 1892, 1898). In terms of the

methodological inventions of description and classification of archaeological materials,

Willey and Sabloff (1993:38-92) labels this period as “Classificatory-Descriptive Period”

(1840-1914).

With these methodological foundations, many “archaeologists” conducted their

fieldworks in different parts of the world, Old and New, and accumulated archaeological

materials and produced factual reports rather than travelers’ accounts (tradition of

Stephens [1837, 1838, 1841, 1843] and Catherwood [1844]). In the Andes, for instance,

they include Johann Tschudi (1869), Francis de Castelnau (1854), Ernest W. Middendorf

(1893-1895), Ephraim G. Squier (1877), Sir Clements R. Markham (1856, 1871, 1892,

1910), Wilhelm Reiss and Alphons Stüdel (1880-1887), and Max Uhle (1903). As growing

amounts of archaeological materials were recovered and recorded, gridded plan and

section views became a standard of archaeological field methods by the end of the
 9

Figure 2-1. Squier’s plan of the Palace of the Virgins of the Sun, Island of Coati, Lake Titicaca,
1877 (Taken from Squier 1877:361).

Figure 2-2. Uhle’s section view of the cemetery at the foot and under the base of the Painted
Temple, 1903 (Taken from Uhle 1903:19, Figure 3-5).
 10

century (Figure 2-1 and 2-2). This indicates that spatial data on distributions of artifacts

came to be recognized as essential by archaeologists working in different regions of the

world.

During this period political authorities in Central Europe in particular abused

archaeology for political purposes such as the instigation of nationalism. Since

archaeology affirmed its ties to the study of national histories, archaeology directly

reflected ulterior motives of and political relationships between emerging states in Europe.

For instance, the development of local chronologies was retarded by a reluctance to adopt

the Scandinavian Three-Age system, which was opposed largely for nationalistic reasons

by a number of prominent German archaeologists (reviewed in Trigger 1989:149-150). At

the same time, these political interventions had some unexpected benefits. As Trigger

(1989:150) points out, “a concern with historical and ethnic problems led archaeologists

to pay increasing attention to the geographical distribution of distinctive types of artifacts

and artifact assemblages in an effort to relate them to historical groups.” Here we can see

a germination of spatial thinking in archaeology. The first archaeological spatial analysis

based on distribution maps was born out of incited nationalism and multidisciplinary

atmospheres at an early developmental stage of archaeology.

2.2. Environmental Determinism, Chronology, and Diffusionism

This trend in Europe was driven forward by the Austro-German school of

“anthropo-geographers” typified by Friedrich Ratzel and Franz Boas1 (Clarke 1977:2). As

 11

their professional identification suggests, they stressed the roles of landscape and

geography, by which the patterns of archaeological distributions were thought to have

been conditioned. One of the headstreams of this school of thought can be found in

Scandinavian archaeology. As early as the 1840s Jens J. A. Worsaae and his colleagues,

searching for the correlations between changing paleoenvironmental settings of

Scandinavia and distribution patterns of prehistoric populations of the region, focused

their attentions on various environmental variables (e.g., flora, fauna, climatic changes,

and soil types) under multidisciplinary collaborations (Trigger 1989:247-248).

Their progressive approach also inspired many British and other European

archaeologists and resulted in a large-scale campaign of environmental determinism in

Europe during the early 20th century. They involve Robert Gradmann (1906), H. J.

Mackinder (1904, 1909), O. G. S. Crawford (1921), and Cyril Fox (1923, 1932) (cf.

Hellmich 1923; Schliz 1906; Wahle 1915). Fox in particular, in his “The Personality of

Britain” (1932), combined the ecological-distributional approach of Gradmann and

Crawford with the positional geography of Mackinder to produce some major

generalizations about the relationship between landscapes and culture history (Trigger

1989:248-249). It was in this context that Cyril Fox later elaborated a technique that

combines a series of archaeological and environmental distribution maps to cover a

region or a country changing over several millennia (Clarke 1977:2). It is important to

note that distribution maps in the early 20th century had been extended horizontally and

had acquired temporal depth. This corresponds to the first half of the period that Willey
 12

and Sabloff (1993:96-148) labeled as “Classificatory-Historical Period” (1914-40/

1940-60) where American archaeologists concerned themselves with stratigraphic,

seriational, and classificatory methods and culture-historical syntheses of New World

regions and areas. Both in Europe and the United States, artifact classifications now

functioned as devices to aid the plotting of culture forms in time and space (Willey and

Sabloff 1993:96; Aldenderfer 1996:6). Fox’s approach, in addition, had been widely

adopted since the 1930’s by Gordon V. Childe (1934), W. F. Grimes (1945), A. H. Hogg

(1943), and Woolridge and Linton (1933) (Clarke 1977:2).

At the base of the interpretations of archaeological distributions during the late 19th

century through the early 20th century were earlier evolutionary preoccupation and

subsequent diffusionism, both of which were profoundly based on a static but widely held

view of humanity as “phlegmatic actors” (Trigger 1989:150-155). This somewhat

pessimistic worldview led archaeologists to consider cultural traits to be once-and-for-all

phenomena insofar as they were originated somewhere as anomalies or mutations and

spread to other regions. The origin of those adventitious innovations was traced back to

ancient Egypt by Petrie (1939) and to Mesopotamia by Childe (1929, 1939). Through the

use of distribution maps and typological sequences of material remains, diffusionists

attempted to plot the regions of similar material cultures as “culture areas” at a regional

and even continental scale and devoted themselves to reconstruct the culture histories in

terms of diffusion, direct contact, and acculturation (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:5).

Definitions of culture areas are characterized by two basic premises. First, material
 13

culture was thought to be a direct and non-problematic reflection of a distinct people.

Second, cultural traits were assumed to spread concentrically or isotopically at the same

rate with no constraints of physical space (Aldenderfer 1996:5; Wheatley and Gillings

2002:6). The definitions are arbitrary in nature and vary in scale depending on the

problem of interest. As Aldenderfer (1996:5) notes, a good example can be seen in a

comparison of Gifford and Kroeber (1937) and Kroeber (1939). Whereas the latter defines

a large area as “California” alongside of “the Eastern Woodlands” and “the Great Plains,”

the former further divides the same area into smaller areas such as “Pomo culture area.”

In any case, the definitions of culture areas became quite subjective because

diffusionistic explanations were based upon simple visual examination of distribution

maps (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:5).

Archaeologists uniformly employed distribution maps, but the features to be plotted

on those maps were slightly different in the United States and Europe. While European

archaeologists put their emphasis largely on artifactual distributions with close ties to

environmental settings, American counterparts gradually included social institutions and

settlement pattern as well (Clarke 1977:3). As Boas rejected environmental determinism

and turned his attention to a closer examination of social organization of the Eskimo and

other groups (Boas 1888), American archaeologists similarly shied away from European

environmentalism, resulting in a closer alliance with anthropology.

 14

2.3. Pursuits of Context, Function, and Process

As the United States expanded westward and as Euro-Americans penetrated into

different parts of the Americas, greater amounts of archaeological research and

publication of its results were undertaken with governmental funding. This steady

increase in the description of antiquities, seen in a series of handbooks (Hodge [ed.]

1907-1910; Steward [ed.] 1946-1950), highlighted a significant divergence between new

information and the artifactual inventories of culture areas defined by then. The emergent

distribution patterns of these new findings could no longer be explained solely from the

viewpoint of diffusionism. Thus, diffusionistic explanations gradually disappeared from

archaeology.

In concert with the growing corpus of antiquities, dissatisfaction among American

archaeologists with the limited goals of chronological orderings of the artifacts and events

gradually mounted to the critical threshold of tolerance in the late 1930s (Willey and

Sabloff 1993:154-155). Archaeologists began to argue over the ultimate objectives and

future directions of their discipline (cf. Kluckhohn 1939, 1940). Some considered

archaeological objectives should be contextual-functional reconstruction and explanatory

exploration of culture change rather than mere chronological ordering and plotting of

material cultures. This vision received a boost from the invention of Libby’s radiocarbon

dating method that greatly helped free archaeologists from their preoccupation with

chronology. Their pursuits of context and function resulted in the reemergence of cultural

evolutionism and emphasis on integrative historical and evolutionistic concepts such as

 15

“horizon style,” “cultural tradition,” and “culture stage” as well as concern for the

underlying causes of culture change.

Julian H. Steward’s initial attempt towards the studies in the realm of what he calls

“cultural ecology” and “multilinear evolution” is one of the major consequences of this

theoretical shift (Steward 1947, 1949, 1955). As William Duncan Strong (1936) and Paul

Martin (Martin et al. 1938; Martin and Rinaldo 1939) argued for the need of theoretical

collaboration between archaeology and ethnology, the interest of archaeologists in

artifacts gradually extended to cover those who created and used those artifacts. In this

context Steward, together with F. M. Setzler, argued that archaeologists should make

efforts to explain human behaviors and adaptations to environmental settings through

examinations of such subject matters as subsistence potentials and settlement patterns

(Steward and Setzler 1938). He called for archaeologists to compare specific cultural

sequences in specific environmental settings aiming at the discovery of developmental

regularities (Willey and Sabloff 1993:155, 178-179).

Although it overemphasized the role of environment in the technological aspects of

cultural development, Steward’s work on prehistoric regional and community patterns in

the American Southwest “certainly stimulated a series of major field researches

concerned with locating and mapping archaeological sites on a regional scale with the

express purpose of studying the adaptation of social and settlement patterns within an

environmental context” (Clarke 1977:3). They involve the survey carried out by Phillips et

al. (1951) in the lower Mississippi Valley between 1940-1947, the more influential
 16

settlement pattern study by Willey (1953) in the Virú Valley, 2 and the Mesoamerican

ecological study by Palerm and Wolf (1957). This indicates that many American

archaeologists finally began to regard environment in a more active or causative sense as

a possible explanatory factor in the development of culture rather than a conventional

passive role (Willey and Sabloff 1993:176-177). It can be thought of as an antithesis of

Boasian antienvironmentalism.

In the 1950s and 1960s, settlement pattern studies became one of the basic field

tasks of archaeological projects. These studies transformed the concept of study area in

terms of spatial scope and patterns. They helped to introduce the regional approach in

archaeology and set the stage for nested or multi-stage spatial analysis of different scale

areas ranging from activity area to intra- and inter-site scales: (1) building or structure;

(2) the arrangement of structures within individual communities; and (3) the distribution

of communities across the landscape. In preparation for the major theoretical and

methodological shifts during the 1960s to 1970s, distribution maps became a more

elaborate tool of sizable scale and temporal sequence with a close tie to this new concept

of study area.

Underlying the development of the regional approach was another important

technological introduction. While the growing popularization of the radiocarbon dating

method contributed to rethinking of archaeological time scale, introduction of aerial

photographs made possible the extension and new conception of study areas. In the

Andes, Robert Shippee and Lieutenant George Johnson conducted an eight-month aerial
 17

exploration of Peru for the Peruvian Navy in 1931 (Deuel 1969:235-236). They took a

large number of excellent oblique aerial photographs that involved various important

archaeological sites and geographical landmarks. Though their aerial campaign had no

far-reaching archaeological consequences at the time3, their work laid the base of the

present-day Servicio Aerofotográfico Nacional (SAN), Lima, and opened up doors to

forementioned regional approaches actively pursued in the next few decades. Since World

War II it has become almost a matter of routine for Andean archaeologists to check the

available aerial coverage of their study areas. Aerial photographs enabled them to gain a

bird’s-eye view overlooking their study area as a whole and to locate archaeological sites

and their interrelations within the surrounding topographical settings. Gordon R. Willey

and Richard P. Schaedel adopted aerial photographs for their regional studies (Schaedel

1951; Willey 1959); however, no one extracted as much information from the

photographic archives as Paul Kosok. Kosok first utilized aerial photographs for his

systematic study of coastal irrigation systems and settlements in the 1940s (Kosok 1965).

In his posthumous volume Kosok eloquently expresses his delight at the usability of

aerial photographs as follow:

There was always tremendous satisfaction in discovering new pyramids,

settlements, fortifications, walls, roads and canals on a photograph. Indeed, it

was even exciting to find such ruins on photographs after we had seen them in

the field. For here they looked quite different! We would often exclaim: Why
 18

didn’t we see that there was another ruin right nearby when we were in the

field? Why didn’t we see that this wall extended all the way up the hill? Why

didn’t we follow the ‘end’ of this canal for another half mile and find its

continuation? (Kosok 1965:44)

On the other hand, the understanding of environment as a possible explanatory

factor in the development of culture had also taken root in archaeological inferences.

These developments established a firm theoretical and methodological basis for the

coming period when archaeologists adopted a holistic view of culture and environment in

an interacting, systemic relationship and GIS-based spatio-temporal speculations.

Nonetheless, it was noteworthy that the scale of an individual study area was still limited

to the site level regardless of flowering regional syntheses in the Americas.

2.4. Quantification of Spatiality

Unduly subjective and thus hazardous interpretations of archaeological

distributions in the preceding periods were forcefully challenged by a quantitative

“revolution” inaugurated by a handful of archaeologists in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

During this reform movement known as “New Archaeology,” American archaeologists

began actively to borrow new conceptual models and analytical methods from other

disciplines, notably “new geography” that emphasized quantitative locational analysis

and modeling (Chorley and Haggett [eds.] 1967; Haggett 1966). They first attempted to
 19

move beyond their casual visual examination of distribution maps to obtain a more

objective and verifiable approach and explore in more detail the shape, form, and nature

of the spatial patterns recognizable in the archaeological record.

From this point on it was no longer sufficient to say that the locations of a

number of features … appeared to be grouped together or that some looked to

be aligned upon a particular landscape feature. Was there really a grouping or

preferred alignment, and if so why? Rather than mere description what was

needed was explanation (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:6).

Looking at a distribution map on which site features are plotted, for example,

archaeologists of former periods would have intuitively looked for likely clusters of

features on the grounds and convergence of similar types in similar environmental

settings. However, the advocates of New Archaeology instead tested the validity of the

hypothesized groupings empirically or statistically. This hypothetico-deductive approach

characterized the New Archaeology and cleared the way for the quantification of

spatiality.

The most influential of the new concepts introduced during this period and closely

related to spatial thinking was system theory, in which culture was considered to be a

system in a dynamic equilibrium of the feedbacks between distinctive sub-systems

(Wheatley and Gillings 2002:6-7). Within this conception of culture, spatio-temporal

 20

distributions of material remains were seen as manifestations of specific functional roles

of the culture system to maintain its internal stability facing off against external changes.

In this regard, environment was seen as the primary external factor that exerts

fundamental influences on human behavior and distribution. Underlying these

propositions is a premise that people have led a functional and utilitarian way of life

where they attempt to minimize energy costs and maximize efficiencies in order to adapt

themselves to external changes. The patterns of their adaptations to environmental

settings are eventually inscribed into space as a canvas and thus to be measured as

archaeological records on distribution maps.

Distribution maps still functioned as a useful device, but with a slight change in

their role. They now became a fundamental data summary or stepping-stone for further

detailed analyses (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:7). As seen in Hodder and Orton (1976)

and Clarke (1977), a whole suite of spatial analytical methods were borrowed wholesale

largely from geography, and they were quickly integrated into archaeological field

research. They include modern variants of the von Thünen model of agricultural land use

(von Thünen 1826), Weber’s model of industrial location (Weber 1909), Christaller’s

central place model (Christaller 1933), Hägerstrand’s model of innovation and its

diffusion (Hägerstrand 1952), and gravity models of all kinds (cf. Bogue 1949; Duncan

1959; Launhardt 1882; Schäffle 1878).

Later on, however, Hodder (1984) demonstrated that analyzing spatial distributions

of material cultures by the use of these imported positivistic models is not sufficient to
 21

reveal social contexts within which raw materials were transported. A fundamental

problem here is that archaeologists attempted to explain sociocultural contexts and

processes without the notion of human behavior. As Trigger (1986:7-8) postulated,

linking those imperfect records of cultural behavior to the original human activities is the

only way in which archaeology can be related to the theories and methods of other social

and natural sciences. In this regard, Binford (1977, 1981) searched for absolute or

statistical generalizations that link specific types of material culture to specific aspects of

human behavior.

The greater concern for cultural adaptations to environmental settings and

processes noted above meant that archaeologists became receptive to any innovative

techniques that serve as effective means of collecting environmental data. In this regard,

it is important to note that the first launch of Landsat (Landsat-1; formerly called ERTS-1)

in July 1972 also exerted a fundamental influence upon spatial thinking in archaeology.

Landsat-1 is an unmanned satellite designed by NASA, with the cooperation of the U.S.

Department of the Interior, to acquire data about earth resources on a systematic,

repetitive, medium resolution, multispectral basis (Lillesand et al. 2004:404-438). A

single scene sensed at a nominal altitude of 900 km (ranging from 880 to 940 km) covered

the ground area of 185 by 185 km with ca. 80 m of spatial resolution. Although the spatial

resolution was coarser than that of aerial photographs, much larger spatial data now

became accessible. This eventually led to broaden the extent of study areas of archaeology

and infused new passion into previously meager regional-scale studies. Satellite imagery
 22

was excellent particularly with forementioned ecological concerns, and its use became

widespread throughout anthropology until the 1980s when GIS was put to work for

archaeology.

2.5. “Meaningful Space” and Postprocessual Reasoning

Until the time of New Archaeology, space had been thought of as a canvas upon

which cultural activities left traces or a neutral container for human actions. It was a

universal, clearly measurable, and fundamentally external backdrop to cultural activities.

Since it was a “taken-for-granted category that, in itself, was non-problematic” (Wheatley

and Gillings 2002:8), space remained unchanged all through the ages. The space of the

prehistoric time should consequently be identical to that of the modern archaeologists.

In the 1980s, however, a group of archaeologists called “postprocessualists” raised

questions about the concept of space as a non-problematic abstract backdrop and the

image of landscape as a palimpsest of material traces (Thomas 2001:165). According to

the postprocessualists, the end product of traditional approaches had been nothing but a

history of physical activities that have been done to the land, which often seems to give a

wide berth to the past human lives that were lived there (Barrett 1999:26). Instead, they

purported that space should be viewed as inherently embedded and implicated in social

actions and thus ”cannot exist apart from the events and activities within which it is

implicated” (Tilley 1994:10). They also criticized the idea of processualists who considered

environmental changes as external stimulation (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:8). The

 23

interests of postprocessual archaeologists are re-directed to internal factors such as

perception, experience, and movement to pursue the space that had been individually

constructed through social actions (e.g., dwelling and routine work) reflecting inequalities

and conflicts in the society (Thomas 2001:166).

Now that space was seen as no longer something that archaeologists can readily

share with their colleagues, distribution maps had no future for postprocessualists. The

landscape perceived and experienced through social actions is a fundamentally separate

conception from the physical distributions of archaeological materials: “a territory which

can be apprehended visually and … a set of relationships between people and places

which provide the context for everyday conduct” (Thomas 2001:181). This bipolarity, or

Thomas’ (2001) “duplicity,” of the concepts of space and landscape formed a challenging

agenda to be tackled in GIS-based spatial speculations, which will be discussed in the

following chapters.

The phenomenological vision of space that Tilley and some other postprocessualists

espouse is essentially a subjective vision that may have no correspondence with the

objective reality. Further, these scholars seem not to be concerned with explanation as

much as description of the significance of space. An alternative approach to be pursued,

as Thomas (2001:181) argues, “will still require that we identify and plot the traces of past

activity in the countryside. But the uses to which these traces will be put will have to go

beyond the reconstruction of economic regimes and speculations as to how the land may

have been perceived by past people.” Even though we cannot get at the crude experience
 24

and perception of past people through an act of empathy, we may be able to enter into the

same set of material relationships in which the people found themselves in the past and

to reanimate the past world using our bodies as analogs for those of the past (Thomas

2001:180-181).

The history of spatio-temporal thinking in archaeology, as we have reviewed above,

concerns primarily: (1) how archaeologists have assembled and ordered material culture;

(2) how they have viewed archaeological distributions and space on which those

distributions are plotted; and (3) how the field of vision of archaeologists has become

larger in step with the development of field methods and remote sensing technology.

Aldenderfer (1996:9) argues, “Despite the introduction of powerful new methods of spatial

behavior, new methods for the acquisition of spatial data at very large scales, and useful

theoretical constructs that directed inquiry, there remained a significant gap between the

desire to work at larger spatial scales and the ability to do it in a practical manner.”

Keeping track of the three major concerns mentioned above, GIS fill in this gap and allow

us to go further into more advanced spatio-temporal speculations. I will move on to

discuss the anatomy and archaeological applications of GIS in the next chapter.

Additionally, I will also discuss the challenges and future prospects of GIS-based

spatio-temporal analyses in archaeology.

 25

Notes

1 Franz Boas, known as the father of American anthropology, was born in Germany and

first studied physics. Developing his interest in geography, he finally received his
doctorate in geography in 1881 (McGee and Warms 1996:128).
2 In the Andes, many archaeologists modeled their fieldworks after Willey’s settlement

pattern study (e.g., Bankes [1972], Billman [1996, 1999a, 1999b], Dillehay [1976],
Donnnan [1973], Earle [1972], Eling [1988], Moseley [1975], Nolan [1980], Patterson
[1971], Proulx [1985], Schreiber [1999], Silverman [2002], Stanish [1999, 2003],
Tschauner [2001], and Wilson [1983, 1988]).
3 This is probably because the bulk of the aerial photographs remained unpublished

and were in the possession of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research,
Inc., New York (Kosok 1965:19).
 26

CHAPTER 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF GIS

In 1963, Roger Tomlinson and colleagues developed the Canada Geographic

Information System (CGIS) for the federal and provincial governments to identify the

nation’s land resources and their existing and potential uses (Longley et al. 2001:10, 12).

This is widely known to be the origin of GIS. Through the major developments of

subsequent systems such as DIME-GBF (Dual Independent Map Encoding-Geographic

Database Files) by the U.S. Bureau of Census in the late 1960s and the first

contemporary vector GIS called ODDESY by the Harvard Laboratory for Computer

Graphics in the late 1970s, and the release of ArcInfo in 1981 by Environmental Systems

Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), GIS gradually evolved to the form that we know today (Lo

and Yeung 2002:5-7; Longley et al. 2001:11-12). It was in 1984 that the first accessible

source of information about GIS in book form, “Basic Readings in Geographic Information

Systems” (Marble et al. [eds.] 1984), was published. In this sense, GIS are relatively new

technology. For over 20 years thereafter, fueled by various underlying factors such as

improving performance of and concurrently decreasing price of computing hardware, GIS

have been rapidly developed and employed for various purposes in a huge variety of

contexts ranging from governmental to commercial and academic domains.

Some archaeologists followed the steps of many precocious disciplines such as

 27

forestry and hydrology and began to use this useful tool for their analyses of spatial

phenomena in the early 1980s. By this time, archaeologists had been fully aware of the

importance of spatial data in their research efforts; however, there remained a significant

gap between their desire to work at larger spatial scales and their ability to do so in a

practical manner. Here was a pivotal point at which GIS came into play (Aldenderfer

1996:9). GIS provided archaeologists with sophisticated means of scalable data

management and manipulation based on various data sources that are different in scale

for the purpose of interpreting and explaining spatial and temporal distributions of

material culture. This indicates that GIS successfully integrated the three major concerns

of conventional spatio-temporal thinking in archaeology discussed in the previous

chapter.

3.1. What are GIS?

GIS are defined by an archaeologist as follows:

Geographic information systems are essentially spatially referenced databases

that allow one to control for the distribution of form over space and through

time. They are more than computerized cartography because they provide for

the storage, mathematical manipulation, quick retrieval and flexible display of

spatially referenced data (Green 1990:3).

 28

Figure 3-1. The logical subsystem model of GIS originally put forward by Marble (1990) (Taken
from Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 11, Figure 1.2 and partially modified).
 29

Green’s definition corresponds exactly to Marble’s (1999:12-13) structural model of GIS

consisting of four major sub-systems: (1) Data entry subsystem, (2) Data storage and

retrieval subsystem, (3) Data manipulation and analysis subsystem, and (4) Data

visualization and reporting subsystem. In addition to these four subsystems, Wheatley

and Gillings (2002:11) add User Interface (Figure 3-1). From commercial ones such as

ESRI’s ArcGIS to noncommercial GRASS1 (Geographical Resources Analysis Support

System), recent GIS softwares have basically the same logical structure of those five

subsystems. These subsystems are designed to be interrelated to each other to

accomplish intricate procedures for storage, analysis, and display of spatially referenced

data in response to a user’s commands. As you can see in Figure 3-1, furthermore, we

now have a good selection of data input and output devices compatible with GIS. Flexible

data input and output in cooperation with those peripheral devices is one of the major

features of GIS as well.

3.1.1. Data Structure Models. Geographic data that we deal with in GIS basically link

three different types of data: place, time, and attributes. Place is an essential element in

geographic information, which is used to plot the objects of interest precisely on a map,

whereas time is optional. Attributes are explanatory information assigned to particular

places and are subdivided into five different scales: nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio, and

cyclic (or directional) (Longley et al. 2001:64). Taking site data as an example, place is the

information of site location usually represented by Cartesian coordinates. Attributes are

 30

arbitrarily configurable and basically expandable data such as site name, site size, site

cluster and associated canal system, linkage information to artifact inventories in

external database, and so forth. As of now, there is no way to treat time as a separate data

component in GIS. Date datum in conventional DBMS, for instance, takes one of the

formats separated by slashes such as “YYYY/MM/DD,” but the short time scale of this

ordinary format does not fit an archaeological time scale. The temporal resolution of

archaeological time scale is much coarser and takes forms such as “Late Archaic,”

“Classic Maya,” “2,500 B.P.,” “1,150 B.C.,” and “Late Intermediate Period.” Further, the

radiocarbon dating method that is very widely used by archaeologists does not provide a

very precise date, as each assay is accompanied by margins of error: “1215 ± 40 B.P.” and

“924-938 A.D. (2 sigma: 0.020).” Consequently, for the time being, time should be

integrated into attributes (e.g., “period of occupation” or “C14 dating”), or combined with

place and represented as a single component for each period of occupation. The treatment

of time still remains to be refined and is one of the major agendas for GIS users including

archaeologists to establish truly four-dimensional systems. Archaeologists have to solve

this fundamental problem by working out a comprehensive method to integrate all the

variants above. In any case, this data structure consisting of three fundamental data

types operates quite similarly to that of traditional recording system of site location on

maps, linked to card references of attribute information (Maschner 1996; Wheatley and

Gillings 2002).

For the purpose of display and analysis, both location and attribute data are
 31

organized into thematic layers, accumulated one over another (Figure 3-2), and

manipulated for further analyses (Maschner 1996:2; Wheatley and Gillings 2002:25-28).

These thematic layers, for example, may involve such natural and cultural features as

topography, soils, lithology, microclimate, hydrology, roads, vegetation types, and

archaeological site distribution. The ability to construct new data layers from those

already associated with maps is one of the most important features of GIS. Such sidebar

layers may include aspects, slope or grade, view, and so on (Maschner 1996:2).

The data layers are stored in one of two formats as vector or raster data. Because of

the finite resources (e.g., disk space), infinite information of the real world must be

reduced or arbitrarily selected. In other words, it would be impossible to represent in

digital format the real world as it is. Each of the two data models of representing the

infinite information of the world, consequently, has its own advantages and

disadvantages summarized in Table 3-1 (Longley et al. 2001:72-75). The selection of data

model must be done depending on the nature of the geographical phenomena of interest

and the goals of the research.

The vector data model is based upon the “discrete object view” where geographers

see the world as an empty space occupied by objects with well-defined boundaries, which

are distinguished by their dimensions and represented by points (vertices), lines (sets of

vertices connected by precisely straight lines2), and polygons (areas enclosed by a series

of straight lines connecting vertices) (Figure 3-3). This concept of space is quite similar to

that of archaeologists before postprocessual interventions.

 32

Figure 3-2. A GIS overlay consisting of GPS measurements, archaeological structures,

contour lines, aerial photograph, and Digital Elevation Model (from top to bottom).

Table 3-1. Relative advantages of raster and vector representations (Taken from Longley et al.
2001:75).

Issues Raster Vector

Volume of data Depends on cell size Depends on density of vertices
Sources of data Remote sensing, imagery Social and environmental data
Applications Resources, environmental Social, economic, administrative
Software Raster GIS, image processing Vector GIS, automated cartography
Resolution Fixed Variable
 33

Since you have to trace geographical features on the screen placing the vertex or

vertices to represent them as either one of the feature types above, vector datasets are

time-consuming to make. Although accuracy and volume of this data mode theoretically

depend on the density of vertices, in fact, the volume is relatively smaller than that of

raster data mode. For example, when I traced contour lines on a topography map of 13

MB, which is a raster dataset, the resultant vector dataset of the traced lines is only ca.

1.5 MB.

The vector data mode is more advantageous in the management of objects with

well-defined boundaries; therefore, it is more applicable to analyze the spatial

relationships between the constituent geographical objects and to ask questions such as

“[I]s area 1 adjacent to area 2?” or “[H]ow many square km is area 3?” (Wheatley and

Gillings 2002:48-49). The data used for conventional spatial statistics such as

point-pattern analysis fall in this type of data model. Additionally, standard GIS are

equipped with several useful tools for spatial interpolation that create a continuous

surface from a limited number of points distributed and collected on the study area (e.g.,

trend surface, semivariogram, and kriging). Digital Elevation Model (DEM) can also be

created from point and/or line data using interpolation algorithms.

The raster data model, on the other hand, is based upon the “field view” where

geographers consider the world as a continuous surface, which is divided into a fine mesh

of gridded cells with a series of properties or attributes assigned (Figure 3-4).

Consequently, this data model copes better with data that change continuously across
 34

Figure 3-3. Vector representations of geographic features.

Figure 3-4. Raster representation of a geographic feature.

 35

the survey area (e.g., soil data) that has no clear-cut edge or boundary (Wheatley and

Gillings 2002:50-57). Aerial photographs and satellite images are utilized to generate

independent raster data layers, such as structural geology, vegetation, and soil moisture

(Maschner 1996:2). Although the model is less precise than the vector data model, it is

more honest to the inherent quality of the geographic data. Since the resolution is fixed as

opposed to vector, each cell needs to be small for accuracy (Longley et al. 2001:72-73).

The spatial analysis based on this type of continuous data was first invented in geology

but has made little impact on the spatial analysis in archaeology until very recently

(Orton 2005:154).

3.1.2. Merits of GIS for Archaeologists. GIS have various capabilities that are useful

to archaeology. One of the most important benefits from an archaeological application of

GIS is that GIS alleviate a huge burden on making distribution maps and avoid a series of

human errors in hand-made maps (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:18). Traditional manual

mapping methods have never allowed efficient data addition, modification, and deletion.

Quite unfortunately, there was no way but to sweep the slate clean. The introduction of

GIS revolutionized this cumbersome and labor-intensive situation of data creation and

management. Archaeologists need no longer modify their maps themselves. All they have

to do is directly modify the data in thematic layers. The modification will automatically be

reflected on the map of interest. In addition, the combination of data overlay can be

changed very easily according to need. This was not allowed by the conventional manual
 36

mapping either. Thus, the timesaving technology provides archaeologists with much

more time to spend for analyses and interpretations.

Further, the engagement in GIS-based mapping and data collection will help

archaeologists heighten their spatial awareness during research efforts. Since data layers

and archaeological information in them require being properly georeferenced and aligned

with one another in the same coordinate system, GIS overlays will never allow for obscure

descriptions of location for data layers. Archaeologists have to, manually or automatically,

assign precise coordinates to each object or phenomenon of interest, which is enclosed by

vector vertices or represented by a set of raster pixels. Obscure descriptions will simply

result in the deterioration in quality of plotting and subsequent analysis. Thus, through

the handling of properly georeferenced overlays composed of various data sources,

archaeologists accordingly need to improve their conceptions and descriptions of

locational information.

Secondly, GIS virtually have no limit on scale and allow us to freely zoom in and out.

This means that you can move back and forth to display, analyze, and print the maps that

are different in scale from continental level down to single grid level of excavation unit.

This quasi-scale-free data management structure is completely compatible with the

multi-stage spatial conception of conventional settlement pattern study. However, since

the spatial resolution of each map layer depends upon the scale at which the features

were observed and plotted, archaeologists have to choose the most appropriate scale for

the objects and phenomena of interest.

 37

Thirdly, GIS are compatible with various data sources and external analytical

software. Major data sources involve remotely sensed data (e.g., aerial photography and

multispectral satellite imagery) and digital survey equipment (e.g., Total Station and GPS).

You can also import traditional hardcopy maps by digitalizing them through the use of

scanner and digitizer. In the past several years, the role of the internet has become very

important. Various types of geographical and attribute data can be purchased or

downloaded free from digital archives on the World Wide Web. Imported data are

organized and processed for subsequent spatial analysis and decision making. Although

GIS come equipped with standard analytical tools, those data can be transferred to

external analytical software for more vital capabilities.

The flexible compatibility of data integration in GIS further helps to cultivate

sustained interests of archaeologists in multidisciplinary collaborations. As the role of

GIS as a comprehensive archaeological database is further developed, much wider variety

of data sources will be integrated into the spatio-temporal overlays of GIS. Aside from

conventional base map components such as topography maps and remotely sensed data,

they involve geophysical and geochemical data (e.g., magnetometry and Gas

Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry) and subsurface information sensed by Ground

Penetrating Radar (GPR) (Campana and Francovich 2003; Kvamme 1999; Shimada et al.

2003). Cattani (2005:233) argues that “GIS can be considered as [a] revolutionary tool for

archaeological research, not only because it can evaluate or multiply data, but because it

press[es] archaeologist to look for more contextual data.”

 38

3.1.3. GIS as an “Analytical Toolbox.” Many preceding studies have stressed the role

of GIS as an “analytical toolbox,” not a mere cartographic tool for fancy maps or a data

management system, considering this as one of the major benefits of archaeological

application of GIS. Kvamme (1993) and Bailey and Gatrell (1995) further discuss that

spatial data analysis represents much more than query and map overlay. This is certainly

true in terms of the basic design of GIS, but at the same time somewhat misleading in a

practical sense. A quick glance at the list of analytical functions available in GIS software

will make one aware of some limitations. As Orton (2005:148) points out, GIS “frequently

lack analytical capability, or are designed to answer the sorts of questions that

archaeologists do not commonly ask.” Thus, we are strongly urged to enhance the

analytical capability with assistance of external applications and/or to transform “plain

vanilla” GIS packages into something very useful and powerful especially for

archaeological analysis (Aldenderfer 2001). Many archaeologists will probably take the

former approach unless they are very familiar with statistics, mathematics, and computer

programming. In either case, as long as archaeologists dare to state that the true worth of

GIS is in their spatial analytical capabilities, they have to make themselves familiar with

the potentials and limitations of spatial statistics, visual exploration of spatial data (e.g.,

buffering, Thiessen polygons, and cost surface analysis), and locational modeling in the

light of recent developments in each subfield.

Orton (2005) discusses the implications of recent developments in spatial statistics,

using as an example his point-pattern (vector) and continuous (raster) data analyses of
 39

an early Maglemosian site in South Zealand, Denmark respectively by means of ADE-43

and Variowin4. Point-pattern analysis is a conventional approach that deals with the

distributions of archaeological remains (e.g., artifacts and sites) and searches for patterns

within the sampled distributions (Hodder 1977; Hodder and Orton 1976). Traditional

techniques for this type of analysis could not deal well with the three important questions

of (1) scale, (2) edge effects, and (3) quality and consistency of archaeological data (Orton

2005:148-149). These techniques examined the patterns over a wide range of scales, but

a spatial pattern can demonstrate completely different characteristics at different scales.

Therefore, the most reliable result can be gained when the pattern is examined at scale

that it was observed. Traditional point-pattern analysis was also based on the

assumption of a theoretically infinite study area, while archaeological data are

intrinsically finite and have boundaries or edges that confine the study area. Further, the

quality and internal consistency will not only affect the choice of technique, but will

determine the suitability of the dataset for spatial analysis at all. Strictly speaking, spatial

analytical techniques favor intra-site spatial data over inter-site or regional scale data,

preferably collected by a single individual or organization over a relatively short period of

time. The recent developments in spatial statistics helped to solve the first two of these

three problems and have already been reflected in recently developed software such as

ADE-4; however, the third is still with us. Archaeologists need to keep their eyes on this

challenging issue when conducting any kind of point-pattern analysis.

GIS-based graphical explorations of spatial data can solve some long lasting
 40

problems in archaeological spatial analyses (Maschner 1996:9-10). As for site catchment

analysis, there has been a strong criticism arguing that the concentric rings drawn

around sites do little to represent the natural environment or actual human behavior.

Thiessen polygons have also been criticized for the lack of control for natural features and

measures of agricultural productivity, population size, political power, and time. This is

primarily because they have been generated on the assumption that all points are

contemporaneous and are of equal weight. These are idealized theoretical models that are

intended to be modified using real-world data. Archaeologists treated them, however, as if

they can be readily applied to the real world. These problems can be solved with the aid of

cost surfaces generated from landscape data and other weighted measures. Thus,

multiple techniques can be cooperatively assembled to complement the theoretical and

methodological deficiencies of archaeology and to examine and solve more complicated

problems.

3.2. Major Analytical Methods of GIS Applications

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the concepts of space and landscape have

gradually changed all along the history of archaeology. In the early 1980s when GIS were

first introduced into archaeology, there were two opposing conceptions: the

processualistic spatiality (space as non-problematic abstract backdrop and the image of

landscape as a palimpsest of material traces), on one hand, and the postprocessualistic

backlash against it, on the other. Similarly, GIS applications were also split broadly into
 41

two separate directions. Some archaeologists who kept going on their old track began to

pursue locational modeling on the basis of conventional settlement pattern study and

regional-scale site databases (Westcott and Brandon [eds.] 2000). Those who were

oriented to more postprocessualistic approaches, on the other hand, sought to

reconstruct past environment for the ultimate purpose of reconstructing past landscape.

3.2.1. Predictive Modeling. Due to its substantive use in many research projects,

predictive modeling has become a defining feature of GIS in archaeology, since it emerged

in the 1980s. The purpose of this type of modeling is to predict the probability of the

occurrence of an archaeological event in a given locus through statistical techniques such

as discriminant analysis or logistic regression. For its cost-effective nature, predictive

modeling was favored particularly by CRM research and land development programs in

the United States. Through the modeling studies, researchers could address potential

locations of archaeological sites without field surveys and thus more probably keep

themselves away from a threat of destroying them. In other words, the modeling study

assumed a vast unsurveyed area.

Earlier predictive models came to be criticized because they relied heavily or

exclusively on environmental variables; however, in the 1990s the modeling studies went

beyond mere locational prediction based on topographic features and began to attribute

the spatial distribution of archaeological remains to non-environmental variables. Allen

(1996) argued that variability in the productivity of maize agriculture, which largely
 42

depends on the duration of the growing season, was critical in the distribution of

prehistoric Iroquoian political groups in New York State. In contrast, Hasenstab (1996),

focusing on the same political groups but from a different perspective, argued that

political conditions were often more important for the settlement distribution than the

purely environmental constraints. These recent studies show that predictive modeling

and GIS are compatible or complementary. It is likely that predictive modeling will

become a more reliable tool for spatial analysis in GIS through some refinements, such as

a thorough consideration of both environmental and cultural factors and their

interaction.

As opposed to its popularization in the United States, earlier modeling study was not

appreciated in Europe. There was no huge unsurveyed area left in Europe, which was a

primary requisite for conventional predictive modeling as a site location predictor.

Consequently, European archaeologists could not find any value in GIS either.

Nevertheless, since V. Gaffney and Z. Stančič demonstrated in the early 1990s the value

of GIS in the interpretation of regional survey data (Gaffney and Stančič 1991, 1992; Lock

and Stančič [eds.] 1995), a significant number of European archaeologists have begun to

take serious interest in GIS as well (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:20).

3.2.2. Postprocessual Orientation. Maschner (1996:5-13) sketches out several spatial

analyses available for GIS-based archaeology. Those involve cost surface analysis,

viewshed analysis, optimum path analysis, site catchment analysis, boundary definition
 43

analysis, and so on. The most attractive of these for archaeologists may be viewshed or

line-of-sight (LOS) analysis. This 3D-GIS-based approach helps archaeologists examine

the actual view of prehistoric people and explore their perception of landscapes, putting

larger foci on social and cognitive characteristics of prehistoric human behavior.

Wheatley (1996), for example, is concerned with how prehistoric people in Wessex,

England perceived their landscapes and with the spatial scale of that perception. By

adopting multiple viewsheds from specific points, Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott (1996)

attempt to examine the relationship between stone monuments and astronomical

phenomena on the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Furthermore, Madry and Rakos (1996) employ

optimum path analysis as well as viewshed analysis to examine the relationship between

Celtic hillforts and roads in the Burgundy region of France. They argue a strong

correlation of these roads with visibility from the hilltop defenses. Trivial problems of

viewshed analysis include tree problem and height-of-viewer problem. These are

essentially due to the lack of necessary data such as reconstruction of prehistoric

environment and bioarchaeological inference of then-average stature.

For their basic concept of space, GIS are inherently more suited for processualistic

research issues. Thus, priority is now being placed on the search for more postprocessual

applications beyond for viewshed analysis. In order for archaeologists to pursue the

experiential phenomena of past people such as perception and experience, it is essential

to make efforts to reconstruct the same set of material relationships in which the people

found themselves in the past. Postprocessualistic approaches should not be thought of as

 44

an antithesis to the preceding processualistic counterparts, but considered as logical

outgrowth of the processualism. As a consequence, many multidisciplinary researches

are now aimed at reconstructing paleoenvironment for the ultimate purpose of

reconstructing past landscape.

3.3. Future Prospects of GIS Applications

3.3.1. Post-Postprocessual Approach to Landscape. In response to the

postprocessual duplicity of the concepts of space and landscape discussed in the

previous chapter, some archaeologists who use GIS also began to ask questions such as:

“How do we perceive our landscape through our minds?,” “How did the ancient people

perceive their landscape through their ancient minds?,” and “How can we perceive the

ancient landscape?” All these questions fall under the realm of perception, experience,

and epistemology and thus cannot be solved solely by mean of algorithms or theoretical

geography (e.g., conceptual models and spatial analysis). From the viewpoint of

Batesonian cybernetic approach5 and related ecological schools of thought, Forte (2003)

challenges these questions. He puts forward a new approach for reconstructing and

interpreting the ancient landscape through Virtual Reality (VR).

With their ultimate objective to create integrated cybernetic systems implemented in

relation to the rules of neural networks and theories of artificial intelligence (AI), Forte

and his colleagues are now developing specific software using C++6 and OpenGL7. In

order to contextualize past human activities in the digital environment, they will not only
 45

reconstruct ancient physiography in four dimensions with simulated meteorological

conditions, but also integrate animal and human characters (or agents) performing

specific activities, natural and sociocultural events such as disasters, land degradations,

husbandry, farming, herbage, and rituals. Sensory properties (e.g., sound, smell, etc.) will

also be “spatialized” and linked to specific spaces or dynamic events. They are expecting

the systems to provide two kinds of learning: self-learning of the virtual agents in the

digital ecosystem and self-virtual-learning of the user through the interactions with the

agents and digital environment.

If the creation of such gargantuan systems is indeed feasible, as Thomas (2001)

argues, we may be able to enter into the reconstructed set of material relationships in

which ancient people found themselves in their mindscape and to surrogate the behaviors

of those people through the self-virtual-learning within the systems.

3.3.2. Macro-Regional Paradigm. With its full scalability, GIS are fully compatible

with different levels of conventional spatial analyses: intra-structure, intra-site, and

inter-site level. As Billman and Feinman (1999) acknowledge the feasibility of GIS

application for their studies in the Americas, regional data management, analysis, and

modeling based on regional full-coverage surveys will be a potential field of application.

Billman (2005, personal communication) and other advocates of conventional settlement

pattern surveys have actually begun to transfer into GIS geodatabases their paper-based

regional databases accumulated in the past few decades. However, the level at which GIS
 46

can be most effective would be a macro level beyond the inter-site level (e.g., inter-valley

and coast-versus-highland levels in Andean regions). While archaeologists have already

taken advantage of bird’s-eye view by means of aerial photography since Kosok’s first use

for his systematic study of coastal irrigation systems and settlements in the 1940s (Kosok

1965), the integration of satellite imagery and existent regional site databases will offer

much larger, macro-regional perspective. I suspect that macro-regional synthesis would

be another future direction of GIS applications in archaeology.

This future direction is in synchrony with the macro-regional paradigm in

Mesoamerican archaeology proposed by Balkansky (in press). Balkansky critically points

out that the region-centered views of current Mesoamerican archaeology are now

confronted by extreme variations among interacting regions that defy their regional-scale

explanations. He strongly urges his colleagues to consider the implications of their

distribution maps stretching across multiple regions and covering a 3,000-year period

from the earliest villages to the Spanish conquest (A.D. 1521). What is now needed is a

new comprehensive model that explains the long-term evolutionary trajectories of the

interacting regions. Before the introduction of GIS into archaeology, there was no useful

technique that enabled us to deal with such a large amount of data at once. I envisage

that GIS application will be a critical component for any future macro-regional studies.

The volume of spatial data, that is remotely sensed as well as collected in the field,

has been growing rapidly. In these days, it has been getting easier to gain access to

regional-scale satellite imagery (e.g., Landsat, SPOT8, IKONOS9, etc.) and DEM (e.g.,
 47

SRTM10) that can be valuable data sources for the construction of macro-regional site

database. As a result, irrespective of different theoretical orientations noted above, new

methods for the management and exploration of this swelling database have also been

seen as not merely desirable, but essential. Farley and Gisiger (1996) stress the need for a

nationwide database and analysis system both for the management of archaeological

resources and for macro-regional analyses.

 48

Notes

1 GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a free open source GIS

originally developed by the U.S. Army - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

(USA-CERL, 1982-1995), a branch of the US Army Corp of Engineers in Champaign,
Illinois. See http://grass.itc.it/ for more information.
2 Some GIS software allows for representation of arcs as points connected by curves

rather than straight lines (Longley et al. 2001:73).

3 ADE-4 is a statistical package for multivariate analysis and graphical display

developed by Jean Thioulouse, Daniel Chessel, and Sylvain Dolédec in the University of
Lyon, France (Thioulouse et al. 1997). Its ADS (Spatial Data Analysis) module composed
of three specific programs provides GIS with an additional analytical power: Ripley (for
univariate analysis), Intertype (for bivariate analysis), and ADSutil (for data
manipulation). For more information, see http://pbil.univ-lyon1.fr/ADE-4/.
4 Variowin is another statistical package developed at the Institute of Mineralogy,

University of Lausanne, Switzerland and downloadable free from http://www-sst.

unil.ch/research/variowin/. This package enables users to build, in an easy way, a
reliable model of spatial continuity which may then be used for geostatistical estimation
or simulation.
5 Gregory Bateson developed one of the most powerful concepts to describe and

explain the mechanism of learning from experience and organization of knowledge in our
brain (Bateson 1972, 1979). He actively employed various ideas, across the disciplinary
boundaries, from anthropology, psychotherapy, the socioogy of small group interacton,
communication studies, education, general systems theory, developmental biology, and
ecology.
6 C++ is an extended version of the previous C language, invented for object-oriented

programming. As compared to C language, C++ is more suitable for the development of

large-scale systems and easier to compile and debug.
7 OpenGL is a program library for generating two- and three-dimensional graphics,

originally developed by Silicon Graphics Inc. It allows users to construct very complicated
models and scenes by combining prepared functions. In this regard, OpenGL has been
adopted in a wide variety of applications such as Computer Aided Design (CAD),
simulation analysis, and the construction of Virtual Reality (VR).
8 SPOT (Système Pour l’Observation de la Terre) is a program to launch a series of

earth observation satellites, originally inaugurated by French government and later

backed up by Sweden and Belgium (Lillesand et al. 2004:439).
9 IKONOS is one of the high-resolution remote sensing systems launched and

operative since 1999. The satellite collects data in four multispectral bands at a nominal
ground resolution of 4 m, as well as 1-m-resolution panchromatic band (Lillesand et al.
2004:458-463).
10 SRTM is a joint project of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) and

NASA to map the world in three dimensions. During a single Space Shuttle mission on
February 11 to 22, 2000, SRTM collected single-pass radar interferometry data covering
119.51 million square km of the earth’s surface, including over 99.9 percent of the land
area between 60°N and 56°S latitude. This represents approximately 80 percent of the
total land surface worldwide and is home to nearly 95 percent of the world’s population
(Lillesand et al. 2004:712).
 49

CHAPTER 4: PACHACAMAC DIGITAL MAPPING

Before the introduction of GIS in the early 1980s, the only reliable tool for the

presentation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological spatial data was distribution

maps on which the spatial dimension was plotted by hand. As I noted in the previous

chapter, one of the most important benefits to be gained from GIS applications in

archaeology is its ability to save time and eliminate human errors. GIS allow for major

data addition, modification, and deletion in a manner that has never been possible with

traditional manual mapping methods, and thus provide archaeologists with much more

time to spend for analyses and interpretations.

The time efficiency and succinctness of GIS-based digital mapping and data

management are theoretically true, but in reality, making maps is a challenging task.

Earlier studies (Allen et al. [eds.] 1990; Aldenderfer and Maschner [eds.] 1996; Forte and

Williams [eds.] 2003; Gaffney and Stančič 1991; Maschner [ed.] 1996; Westcott and

Brandon [eds.] 2000; Wheatley and Gillings 2002) highlighted the analytical capabilities

of GIS, which is the true worth of this technology, and attempted to brush up on the

analytical methods of conventional spatial archaeology introduced by pioneering works

such as Hodder and Orton (1972) and Clarke (1977). None of them, however, discuss

mapping procedures in details. As with the cases in other regions of the world, there are
 50

no ready-to-use digital maps available for archaeological use in the Andes. Furthermore,

constraints such as data scarcity and limited resources are widespread and complicate

the issues.

This and following chapters are concerned with digital map making of the

archaeological site of Pachacamac on the central coast of Peru. The site description in

this chapter will be followed by discussions about the potential of GIS-based mapping

accompanied by the detailed procedural descriptions. It is important to keep in mind that

Andean archaeology as a whole is constrained by limited funds, which in turn lead to a

relative data scarcity and limited human and material resources. A significance of my site

mapping is that it demonstrates the extent to which we can rely on GIS to create

high-quality maps within the bounds of the existing resource limitations. The gap

between the theoretical potential and constraints in reality needs to be fully appreciated

before taking the first step in applying GIS in archaeology. The next chapter will discuss

these constraints in detail.

Creating a site map of Pachacamac and its surroundings is a part of the long-term

Pachacamac Archaeological Project (hereafter PAP), directed by Izumi Shimada,

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. The first two seasons (2003-2004) aimed to

elucidate the social foundations and natural context of the site on the basis of

collaborative research by specialists representing different disciplines and nations.1 For

this project, Shimada has a clear vision for data creation and storage in both digital and

analog formats. Following this vision, I worked as his research assistant during the
 51

spring of 2004 to create a digital map of the site and took part in his excavation in the

subsequent summer to collect field data for the corrections and further refinements to

the map.

Rather than conventional location surveys, we employed GIS and remote sensing

techniques in accordance with available resources. PAP purchased a set of aerial

photographs that were taken in 1957 with an idea to digitize all the archaeological

structures recognizable on the photographs displayed on the computer monitor. Due to

the fact that the site was huge and some of the procedures of map production were very

complicated, it substantively took me almost a year and half on a part-time basis to

complete the map.

4.1. Settings

The archaeological site of Pachacamac is located ca. 30km southeast of the modern

capital of Peru, Lima.2 The site is thought to have been one of the most powerful religious

centers in pre-Hispanic Peru for over 1,000 years. The name of Pachacamac is a

Quechuan compound word of pacha (‘Earth’) and camac (‘Maker’) given by the Inca to the

central coast Pre-Incaic deity, Ychsma, on the Inca conquest of the region around A.D.

1,460. Based on ethnohistorical literature, the deity is known to have been dualistic with

both creative and destructive powers (Rostworowski 1992:23).

The site sits on a plateau on the north bank of the Lurín River and ca. 1 km inland

from its mouth (Figure 4-1). The plateau looks onto the river mouth, the Pacific Ocean,
 52

Figure 4-1. The vicinity of the archaeological site of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:39,000).
 53

and a cluster of small islands offshore. As Shimada (2004:4) argues, this excellent view

must have been critical in the selection of this location in relation to the religious beliefs

among the ancient indigenous populations on the coast that “the Pacific was the source

of all water of the entire world and that the offshore islands were the resting places of

ancestral spirits and deities.”

According to Límite de Zona Arqueológica on the topography maps created by

Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), Peru, the archaeological zone of Pachacamac

occupies an area of 5.219 km2 (ca. 2.015 square miles), while the full extent of the site

remains unknown and the zone is partially occupied by modern-day residential

population of A. H. Julio C. Tello (Figure 4-1). Three massive roughly concentric walls

segment the zone into four major sectors, I through IV extending from southeast to

northwest (Shimada 2004).

Sector I (0.168 km2) is an area in the shape of an irregular trapezoid enclosed by

Uhle’s (1903) “Temple Enclosure” and is thought to have been the most sacred precinct of

the site (Figure 4-2). The enclosure embraces three major monumental structures of

different time periods surrounded by cemeteries. The Old Temple of Pachacamac or

Templo Viejo, the oddly shaped mound with rounded protrusions, was built and

maintained by the Lima or Pachacamac I culture during the late Early Intermediate

Period through the Middle Horizon, ca. A.D. 500-850. It measures ca. 270 by 170 m. The

Painted Temple or Templo Pintado (Uhle’s “Pachacamaj Temple”) is a polychrome

platform mound with nine levels of terraces. It was built by the Pachacamac II culture of
 54

the late Middle Horizon and early Late Intermediate Period, ca. A.D. 850-1000 and

measures ca. 130 by 60 m. The Temple of the Sun or Templo del Sol is a five-tiered

platform mound built by the Inca during the Late Horizon, A.D. 1460-1533. It measures

ca. 220 by 160 m (Ray 1991; Shimada 1991:XXVIII). Additionally, it is argued that earlier

Lima temples lay underneath the latter two temples, although the dates and nature of the

earlier constructions remain uncertain (Paredes and Franco 1985; Patterson 1966:114;

Shimada 2004:4-7).

The second sector (II; 0.855 km2) is an area that surrounds the sacred precinct and

is delimited on the north side by a major NE-SW wall, Uhle’s (1903:62) “Old City Wall” or

“Inner City Wall” (Figure 4-2). Along with the first sector, Sector II composes the core area

of the site. It is in this sector where most of the Pyramids with Ramps (except for V and

VIII), the Pilgrims’ Plaza, and other miscellaneous structures of various sizes are located.

Like the ancient city of Cuzco (Uhle 1903: 11), the sector is subdivided into four quarters

by two major streets running SW-NE and SE-NW and crossing each other near the center

of the site. The multi-level platforms known as the Pyramids with Ramps date to the

Ychsma, or Pachacamac III culture (Late Intermediate Period, ca. A.D. 1100-1460), and

many of them were built along these axes. As Shimada (2004:3) observes, “[t]oday we

have a partial cultural history of the site that has been defined by ordering major,

discrete events of temple construction and arrival of outside influences at the site.”

Outside the Old City Wall stretches ca. 4.2 km2 area that is covered by sand and

sloping up to the northwest. Aside from another massive wall to the northwest, there is
 55

Sector IV

l
al
W
y
it
C
r
te
u
O

A. H. Julio C. Tello

Sector III

Sur
na
e ri ca
a nam
a P
i gu
Ant al
l
W
y
C
it
Sector II
er
n
In

Laguna Urpi Wachak

Templo Pintado

Templo Viejo

0 50 100 200
Meters

Sector I

Templo del Sol

C
ar
re
n

te
rí

ra
u
L

P
an
io

am
R

er
ic
an
a
S
u
r

Figure 4-2. The archaeological site of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:10,000).

 56

very little construction exposed on the surface of the ground. This area is partitioned by

what Uhle (1903) calls the “Outer City Wall” running SW-NE into Sectors III to the

southeast and IV to the northwest. Sector III (ca. 1.979 km2) contains a barrio that is

inferred to have been a provisional residential area for those who carried out purification

of flesh and spirit prior to their entrance to the sacred precincts during the Ychsma and

Inca periods. The date and function of the outermost sector (IV; ca. 2.217 km2), on the

other hand, is yet to be defined (Shimada 2004; Paredes 1991:88).

In my site mapping, I attempted to cover all these sectors above, but the primary

focus was upon the first and second sectors given limited time and resources. Structures

in Sector III, if any, are not exposed on the surface, and the aerial photographs that I used

cover none of Sector IV. Furthermore, some of the structures were not recorded largely

due to poor preservation, sand cover, and/or time restriction. They include: (1) the

Pyramid with the Ramp XV (Eeckhout 2003:142) that is presumably located underneath

the modern-day streets of Av. Santa Rosa and Antigua Carretera Panamericana Sur; (2)

the sand-covered Lima temple of Urpay Wachak ca. 240 m southeast of the Urpay

Wachak Lagoon; and (3) small “Adobitos Group” structures north of the site museum.

4.2. Objectives of My Digital Site Mapping

PAP has both short- and long-term objectives in creating a detailed, GIS-based

digitized map of Pachacamac: creation of a better site map than Uhle’s (1903) and a

GIS-based comprehensive site database that can integrate various corpi of data. During
 57

the course of operations, I further attempted to demonstrate the extent to which we can

rely on GIS and other peripheral techniques (especially remote sensing techniques) to

create a high-quality map irrespective of data scarcity and resource limitations.

4.2.1. Short- and Long-Term Objectives. Max Uhle, known as the father of scientific

archaeology in the Andes (Rowe 1954), created a high-quality, 1:2,000-scale site map of

Pachacamac and attached it to his pioneering volume published in 1903 (Figure 4-3). His

site map is still highly admired for its: (1) detailed, informative delineation of

architectures of the “inner city” (Sectors I and II), (2) expression of vertical intervals of the

buildings by the extent of shading (the higher shaded darker), (3) representation of

irregular surface of buildings with uncertain structures by means of thin lines, and so

forth.

Since Uhle (1903) published his map, no new high-quality map of the entire site has

been made for over 100 years in spite of numerous changes to the site ranging from the

encroachment of modern settlements to backfilling of looted areas. Though various new

plans and reconstruction drawings of excavated temples have been published

individually since the late 19th century (Ravines n.d.:53)3, we do not have an accurate,

updated site map. Before Uhle, Andrés Baleato illustrated the site in 1793 (Ravines

n.d.:67) and Adolph Bandelier prepared a ground plan of the site in 1892; however, it is

obvious that these earlier maps could not match that of Uhle in regard to the accuracy

and the amount of details when these maps are compared (Figure 4-4; Shimada 1991:XV,
 58

Figure 4-3. Max Uhle’s site map of Pachacamac, 1903.

Figure 4-4. Adolph Bandelier’s ground plan of Pachacamac, 1892 (Taken from Shimada
1991:XV, XIX, plate 1 and deliberately inverted for comparison with Figure 4-3 above).
 59

XIX, plate 1). Maps found in recent publications (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6 in Franco 1998)

consist of tracings of airphoto enlargements imposed over the existing topography maps

and lack details. A site map produced probably in February 20024 and sold at the site

museum is very informative with rough outlines of architectures, Cartesian coordinates,

and contour lines (Figure 4-5). Nonetheless, because of its coarseness and small scale,

the map is not fit for the professional use of archaeology.

Thus, Uhle’s site map has been the only one that covers a sizable area involving

main sectors (I and II) of the site and of an adequate precision and accuracy for research

use. Uhle’s map, however, is not high quality enough to be integrated into properly

georeferenced GIS map overlays. My site mapping was aimed at creating a better map

than Uhle’s in terms of its accuracy and information density.

In the long run, our site mapping also aims to build a GIS-based comprehensive site

database. GIS overlay and associated geodatabase enable us to accumulate various corpi

of data ranging from environmental variation to changes in site layout over time. Much of

the pertinent information will be generated by the ongoing multidisciplinary research of

the PAP. On a parallel with intensive excavations and my digital site mapping, PAP is

conducting diatom, pollen, lithological, and macrobotanical analyses of sediment core

taken from the Urpay Wachak Lagoon and the inferred pukio at the east base of the Urpay

Wachak temple in 2003 and 2004 (Winsborough et al. 2005). These studies have begun to

produce for the first time local paleoenvironmental data. Subsurface information was also

collected by GPR. The extensive GPR survey that covered as much as ca. 106,000 m2 was
 60

Figure 4-5. A site map sold at the site museum produced probably in February 2002.
 61

aimed at defining the location and extent of residential areas of different time periods in

combination with intensive surface survey of the entire site (Shimada et al. 2003).

Our site database will allow not only efficient integration but also dissemination of

the results of all previous and future fieldwork. The latest version of our site map is

already open to the general public and always downloadable in PDF format from the

official website of PAP.5 Although traditional paper maps are, so to speak, a “stand-alone”

data source and cannot be readily shared with those who are interested, the data

dissemination in digital format on the WWW may offer a solution to this inconvenient

situation.

4.2.2. Struggles against Tight Budgets. The discussions that will follow in the next

chapter are based on the current situation of Andean archaeology that is typified by data

scarcity and limited resources due to tight budget. These two limitations always go

hand-in-hand. Given ample funds, for instance, we could have surveyed the whole area of

the site using an auto tracking pulse non-prism total station, or adopted the most

accurate digital aerial photographs taken at a favorable altitude by chartering

most-advanced airborne camera systems with LIDAR system.6 However, in reality, this is

not the case. It is always essential for archaeologists to choose the most efficient

methodologies to satisfy their demands within the bounds of available resources. With an

optimistic assumption that we could blend productively the conventional and

cutting-edge technologies, we chose to begin with a combination of topography maps and

 62

old film aerial photographs.

At the launching of the project, we could not obtain high-resolution remote sensing

and other geographical data easily or for free in Peru as we can do in the United States.

Original resources in our hands, furthermore, were not as complete as we hoped. For

instance, camera calibration reports usually attached to aerial photographs at the time of

purchase were not available. A replacement report does not contain essential information

required when removing geometric distortion inherent in photographs. Since there is

basically no ready-to-use procedure manual to solve this type of problem, resource

limitations in particular required me to be inventive to complete my final map. Therefore,

another important objective of my site mapping was to illustrate the extent and manner in

which we could rely on GIS and other peripheral techniques to create high-quality map in

spite of data scarcity and resource limitations.

Without in-depth consideration of the above limitations and other methodological

issues of mapping procedures at the time of research design, particularly when dealing

with such huge sites as Pachacamac, a mapping project is likely to fail. As a matter of fact,

there have been a few abortive mapping projects, digital or analog, that seem to have been

inaugurated with aims similar to ours. The difference in feasibility between these abortive

projects and PAP will be clear in the discussions in the following chapter. In order for

Andean or any archaeologists not to waste time and funds, but to learn from others’ trial

and error, it is worth focusing on the methodological aspects of GIS-based map making

and presenting the whole procedures in details for future benefit.

 63

In the process of map production, I utilized a series of hardware and software.

Although many of them are quite expensive and thus unaffordable for personal use, I

have kept it in mind that I use products that have larger market share so that interested

users may be able to gain easier access to them and to replicate or consult my work more

easily. The hardwares and softwares that I used are listed in Appendix A (“HARDWARES

AND SOFTWARES”). Needless to say, you may want to substitute other products for those

I listed, which will be feasible as well.

 64

Notes

1 For more information about the project, see its official website at http://www.
pachacamac.net. The research issues and aims are clearly stated there.
2 30 kilometers is an approximate distance from the Plaza de Armas or the

principal plaza of Lima. This figure will decrease as the capital is rapidly expanding and
encroaching on the site.
3 These include Squier’s (1877) plans of the Temple of the Sun and the Convent of

Mamacona, Ray’s (1991) reconstructed model of the Temple of the Sun, Eeckhout’s
(2003) plans of the Pyramids with Ramps, and so on.
4 The only manufacturing information that we can identify on the map is

“LAG/PPB – FEB.2002.” It is likely to stand for the producer and production date.
5 See http://www.pachacamac.net/archive.html
6 A LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) system is a technique to collect elevation

information of the earth’s surface by means of a powerful laser sensor, a GPS receiver,
and an INS (Inertial Navigation System) unit (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division
2002b:68).
 65

CHAPTER 5: PROCEDURES

My digital mapping consists of three broad phases: (1) prototype map preparation

based on the resources available prior to the fieldwork in the summer of 2004; (2)

ground-truth checking of the archaeological structures and ground control point (GCP)

measurements by means of RTK Differential GPS of the highest accuracy and; and (3)

data post-processing and consummation of the map. I will discuss these three phases in

order in the following sections and provide step-by-step guides for some specific

procedures in Appendix B (“PROCEDURES MANUAL”).

5.1. Phase I: Prototype Map Creation

The resources available in my hands as of the spring of 2004 were four sheets of

topography maps published in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico Nacional (hereafter IGN),

Peru (1:5,000 scale map with 500-by-500 m quadrangles; 30-K, 30-L, 31-K, and 31-L;

shown in Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 respectively) and scanned images of two aerial

photographs (51.295% overlap in coverage) taken in 1957 by Servicio Aerofotográfico

Nacional (hereafter SAN), Peru (PROYECTO 6512-57-5, 262 and 649; shown in Figures

5-5 and 5-6 respectively). These topography maps were the most detailed and recent ones
 66

Figure 5-1. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico Nacional,
Peru (30-k, A.H. JULIO C. TELLO).
 67

Figure 5-2. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico Nacional,
Peru (30-l, A.H. PAMPA GRANDE).
 68

Figure 5-3. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico Nacional,
Peru (31-k, RUINAS DE PACHACAMAC).
 69

Figure 5-4. 1:5000 scale topography map created in 1992 by Instituto Geográfico Nacional,
Peru (31-l, LURÍN).
 70

Figure 5-5. Aerial photograph taken on March 12th 1957 by Servicio Aerofotográfico
Nacional, Peru (Proyecto 6512-57-5, 626).
 71

Figure 5-6. Aerial photograph taken on March 12th 1957 by Servicio Aerofotográfico
Nacional, Peru (Proyecto 6512-57-5, 649).
 72

Topography Maps

Hardcopy INTERNET
Topography Maps

Scanning
Hardcopy Resource

Digital Elevation Model Softcopy Products

Scanned Process
Topography Maps Downloading

Assigning
DEM
Coordinates
(WGS84)
(UTM18S)
Aerial Photographs camera
calibration certificate
(incomplete)

Aerial
Georeferenced Redefining Camera Report
Photographs
Topography Maps Projection

Clipping and Reprojected DEM Scanning

Merging (PSAD56/UTM18S)

Single Collecting Scanned

Topography Map Z Coordinate Aerial Photographs

Defining
GCPs Orthorectifying
Projection

Projected Orthorectified
Collecting
Topography Map Aerial Photographs
(PSAD56/UTM18S) X-Y Coordinates
(PSAD56/UTM18S)

Contour Lines Archaeological

Digitizing Structures
Shapefile
Shapefile

Elevation Points
Shapefile

Figure 5-7. The work flow of prototype map creation.

 73

for the study area available to the public. Since they were the only resource for which I

could assume both vertical and horizontal accuracy, I adopted them as the basis of

accuracy check. The very first step of Phase I, prototype map production, was to scan the

topography maps and to plug them into ESRI’s GIS software, ArcGIS 8.3 as one of the

base map layers. The work flow of Phase I is summarized in Figure 5-7.

Here care should be taken in using the term “base map.” As already mentioned in

the previous chapter, GIS store various types of datasets in different layers and enable us

to change the combination of superposition according to need. The term “base map” that

I use here is not equivalent to a conventional paper-based map but stands for an

ensemble consisting of multiple layers of the same spatial reference information and

functioning as a starting point for further data manipulation and analysis. These layers

would involve primary datasets such as topography maps, DEM, aerial photographs,

satellite imagery, and other secondary layers made out of the primary layers. Likewise, for

my mapping, with the topography map layer set up as a standard, other data layers will

be assigned the same spatial reference information and superimposed upon one another.

Secondary layers such as archaeological structures and contour lines are also created

through the digitizing process. Thus, the final maps attached at the back of the thesis are

the printed version of certain combinations of different layers of the base map.

5.1.1. Preparation of Topography Map. When digitalizing the hardcopy topography

maps, I utilized a GRAPHTEC CS2000 large scanner and saved the scanned images as
 74

discrete TIFF files (TIFF GROUP IV compression technology; 15,744 x 12,598 pixels).1 At

this point, the four quadrangles are not maps in a real-world coordinate system, but

merely graphic images in image space. In other words, in order to be used as maps, they

need to be given locational information and transformed from a non-real-world coordinate

system (image space) to a real-world coordinate system by means of geometric

transformation methods. The process of converting a dataset from one grid system to

another by assigning locational information is referred to as “georeferencing.”

Georeferencing is usually understood to be a part of a rectification process by which

raw data representing the irregular surface of the earth are projected onto a flat mapping

space and made to conform to a map projection system (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping

Division 2002a: 26, 326). In this case, however, since our scanned topography maps had

already been projected onto a plane using a specific ellipsoid model or datum and

georeferenced by a specific plane coordinate system, simple processes of (1) assigning the

Cartesian X-Y coordinates and (2) defining projection will turn them into maps.

The former can be performed by the resampling program (labeled as “rectify”)

launched from the Georeferencing toolbar of ArcMap, one of the ArcGIS applications for

map production and analysis. Using some reference points with known X-Y coordinates

called “control points,” the program transforms the input image (a topography map) into a

new raster dataset by calculating the pixel values to fill in the output image matrix from

the original image matrix (Lillesand et al. 2004:497). Since the transformation is based on

the coordinates given by the control points, it is to be understood that the same plane
 75

coordinate system are retained in the output image. For each of our topography maps, a

total of 49 sets of X-Y coordinates were assigned to the points at which the vertical and

horizontal grid lines cross each other so that the exact coordinates for each point is

determinable (Figure 5-8). A step-by-step guide for georeferencing is given in Appendix

B.1 (“How to georeference a scanned image”).

When you perform geometric transformation for georeferencing using ArcMap

Georeferencing toolbar, you will be prompted to choose one of the three resampling

methods: (1) nearest neighbor assignment, (2) bilinear interpolation, and (3) cubic

convolution. Each method has both merits and demerits. The selection of the method

depends primarily on the data type of the input image, preference for smooth appearance

in the output image, and acknowledgement of alteration of the original input pixel values

(ArcGIS Desktop Help; Lillesand et al. 2004:497-499; Lo and Yeung 2002:145-146).

Nearest neighbor assignment offers the advantage of computational simplicity and avoids

changing the original pixel values of the input image. In this regard, this method is best

suitable for categorical data (nominal- or ordinal-scale attributes), where each pixel value

represents a class, member, or classification (e.g., land-use and soil maps). However, it

concurrently presents the disadvantage that the edges of features in the output image

may have a jagged, stepped appearance. On the other hand, bilinear interpolation and

cubic convolution provide a smoother finish in the output image. This is because these

more sophisticated methods determine an output pixel value by evaluating the values of

several pixels surrounding its corresponding pixel in the input image. The new output
 76

Figure 5-8. Examples of the points where GCPs were located. Coordinates were assigned to
the points at which the vertical and horizontal grids are intersected.
 77

pixel value is a weighted average of the values of those surrounding pixels, adjusted to

account for their distance from the center of the output pixel (Figure 5-9). The difference

between the two methods is that the former determines the four closest pixels whereas

the latter considers the block of 16 pixels so that the latter provides a slightly sharper

image than the former. Although both of them inevitably alter the original pixel values of

the input image, it will not be any problem unless you use them for categorical data. All

three methods can be applied to continuous data, with nearest neighbor producing a

blocky output, bilinear interpolation producing smoother finish, and cubic convolution

the sharpest. I adopted the nearest neighbor method primarily because of its

computational simplicity. The jagged edges of the output image are hardly recognizable

and do not make any difference.

Georeferencing by means of ArcGIS is quite simple and convenient in terms of its

intuitive GUI navigation; however, the resampling program has nothing to do with

reference information. It only assigns X-Y coordinate values to the pixels of a simple

graphic image regardless of the coordinate system to which the assigned values belong.

For instance, when you add the image georeferenced above to the Data Frame of ArcMap,

you will encounter a warning message: ”One or more layers is missing spatial reference

information. Data from those layers cannot be projected.” Therefore, in order to use it as

a map, there is one more process to be completed, that is, definition of spatial reference

information. Before doing it, however, another supplementary process needs to be

implemented here.
 78

Figure 5-9. Methods of resampling (Taken from Lo and Yeung 2002:146).

 79

Now that each of the four raster images of topography maps is appropriately

georeferenced, it is time to combine them together into one piece. Since the images have

some margins on every side of the gridded map portion (Figure 5-8), only the quadrangles

have to be clipped before combined. In so doing, the Raster Calculator of the Spatial

Analyst extension program of ArcGIS is very helpful. You can perform mathematical

calculations using operators and functions, execute selection queries, and type in Map

Algebra syntax.2 The work flow goes as follows: (1) clipping out the quadrangles from the

raster images by defining “analysis extent” within the images in the “Options”; (2)

combining the clipped quadrangles into one piece by Map Algebra’s “merge” function; and

(3) outputting the merged image into a new GRID (raster) dataset. Appendix B.2 (“How to

clip and combine together parts of raster images”) describes in details each of these steps.

In order to assign the spatial reference information to the combined topography map

layer, I utilized ArcToolbox, another ArcGIS application for data conversion and map

projection. Although I do not go further into the details about map projection here, the

process of defining projection is very straightforward as long as you know the ellipsoid

model or datum and plane coordinate system by which your data source is projected. The

plane coordinate system used for our topography maps is explicitly stated on the maps.

IGN, the producer of the original topography maps, used the UTM or the Universal

Transverse Mercator (“SISTEMA DE CUADRILLADO: UTM CADA 500 METROS”). A UTM

zone map at NASA website indicates that the central coast of Peru is located in Zone 18

South (UTM18S) (Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2000). However, these IGN maps do not
 80

provide information on the datum and ellipsoid model used for their production. We

asked the IGN for the information with a partial success. IGN seems to have used the

Provisional South American Datum 1956 (PSAD56). The problem here is that even the

technical staffs at the IGN were not necessarily familiar with the spatial reference

information of their own maps. Nonetheless, the definition of reference system is feasible

with the information that I obtained. The procedures are described in detail in Appendix

B.3 (“How to define projection and plane coordinate system”).

Once georeferencing and assignment of spatial reference information are

successfully undertaken, our topography map raster dataset can be eventually used as a

map. From this point on, every single layer to be superimposed over this map layer also

needs to be projected by the combination of PSAD56 and UTM18S by which the original

topography maps were projected.

5.1.2. Orthorectification of Aerial Photographs. The aerial photographs 626 and 649

based on which we planned to digitize the archaeological structures were taken in March

12, 1957 by SAN (PROYECTO 6512-57-5). Each of them covers the area of ca. 5.52 km²

(ca. 2.35 x 2.35 km). Overlapping each other on the west side of the site of Pachacamac,

photographs 626 and 649 show great details of archaeological structures (Figures 5-5

and 5-6). Although SAN confidently claims that they should be a stereopair, they are

actually not. The orientation of the images and states of exposure (e.g., length and

orientation of shadows) led me to conclude that these two photographs were most likely
 81

taken from different sides (626 from the west and 649 from the east)3 and at different

times (Figure 5-10). A stereoscopic parallax requires the photographs to be acquired at

exposure stations from one or two flight lines at the same altitude on the same side of the

terrain feature usually with 60 percent overlap between them (Lillesand et al. 2004:658;

Jensen 2000:152; Figure 5-11a and b). The overlap between 626 and 649 is apparently

less than 60 percent.4

In order to be plugged into an ArcMap data layer along with other maps (e.g.,

topography map that I prepared above), the photographs are required to be transformed

into planimetrically true orthoimages. Whereas any points on a map are located in their

true planimetric positions, points on a photograph taken over varying terrain are

displaced from their true map positions. This is attributed simply to the fact that the

former is a scaled orthographic projection, while the latter yields a perspective projection

(Lillesand et al. 2004:141). Figure 5-12 intelligibly illustrates an example of the

displacement in a photograph caused by the perspective projection. Note the differences

of two images in size, shape, and location of the two trees. In addition to the terrain relief,

aerial photographs of perspective projection suffer from various systematic and

nonsystematic errors such as camera orientations, earth curvature, film distortion, and

measurement errors (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:3). Furthermore,

during the manual scanning processes of the original hardcopy photographs 626 and 649,

the scanned images were slightly but erroneously rotated.

The transformation from a perspective projection (photo) to a scaled orthographic

 82

Figure 5-10. Aerial photographs 626 and 649 seem to have been taken at different times and
thus do not compose a stereopair. Note the differences in length and orientation of shadows.
 83

Figure 5-11. Internal geometry of aerial photographs: (a) single photographs 626 and 649; (b)
a stereopair with 60percent overlap; (c) a fiducial mark; and (d) a 3D representation (Taken
from Jensen 2000:142-143, Figure 6-5 and 6-6, and partially modified).
 84

Figure 5-12. Comparative geometry of (a) a map and (b) a vertical aerial photograph. Note the
differences in size, shape, and location of the two trees (Taken from Lillesand et al. 2004:142,
Figure 3-8, and partially modified).

Figure 5-13. File and image coordinate systems (Taken from Leica Geosystems GIS &
Mapping Division 2002b:29, Figure 3-13, and partially modified).
 85

projection (map) in combination with the correction processes of these geometric errors

was performed using the softcopy (versus hardcopy) photogrammetry technique called

“triangulation” or “orthorectification.” The software that I used for this purpose is

IMAGINE OrthoBASE Pro, one of the vital add-on modules contained in Leica

Geosystems’ ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6. It is a “comprehensive digital photogrammetry

package that allows for the fast and accurate triangulation and orthorectification of

images collected from various types of cameras and satellite sensors” (Leica Geosystems

GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:3). As opposed to the conventional geometric correction

techniques such as polynomial transformation, which are based on general functions not

directly related to the specific distortion or error sources, photogrammetry techniques

eliminate geometric errors more efficiently and consequently provide more reliable

orthoimages. The techniques are unique in that they (1) consider the image-forming

geometry to determine the interior misalignment of and exterior angular tilt of photograph

at the time of exposure, (2) deal with multiple photographs bundling them as a block and

take into account the relationships between overlapping images to minimize and

distribute errors within the entire block of images, and (3) explicitly cope with elevation

information to eliminate the spatial displacement due to terrain relief (Leica Geosystems

GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:18-19).

IMAGINE OrthoBASE Pro employs two different types of error correction techniques:

single frame orthorectification and block triangulation.5 In either case, you will be first

prompted to input several parameters, two groups of which represent respectively interior
 86

and exterior orientations of photograph(s). Interior orientation parameters, for instance,

involve the locations (X-Y coordinates) of fiducial marks and principal point. Fiducial

marks are the eight points located in the four corners and in the centers of the four sides

of the focal plane6, or sometimes four points only in the four corners (Figure 5-11).

Principal point is mathematically defined as the point at which the lines between

cater-cornered fiducials cross each other or as the intersection of the perpendicular line

through the perspective center (optical axis7) and the focal plane (Jensen 2000:140).

These two sets of parameters are used: (1) to establish an alignment between image and

file coordinate systems, (2) to straighten the photo image(s) rotated during the scanning

procedure (Figure 5-13), and (3) to approximate and correct radial (or symmetric) lens

distortion (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:29-31).

Aerial photographs are divided broadly into two types: vertical and oblique. When

the former, to which our photographs belong, is taken from a high vantage point in the air,

its optical axis is supposed to be nearly vertical, but the focal plane will be tilted to some

extent because of the exterior orientation of exposure station. As Figure 5-14a illustrates,

exterior orientation of a photograph comes into sight as an angular tilt of the focal plane.

This tilt is defined by six parameters that consist of the camera position ( X L , YL , Z L ) and

the three rotation angles ( ω ,φ , κ ), based on a mathematical principal of analytical

photogrammetry, “collinearity condition” (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division

2002b:38-40; Lillesand et al. 2004:181-182). Collinearity is a condition in which the

camera lens ( L ), any object point in the ground coordinate system ( P ; X P , YP , Z P ), and
 87

Figure 5-14. (a) Collinearity condition and (b) space intersection (Taken from Lillesand et al.
2004:180, Figure 3-.32 and 3.33, and partially modified).
 88

its photographic image ( p ; xP , yP ) all lie on a straight line ( LP ). Collinearity condition

holds irrespective of the angular tilt of focal plane and thus enables you to quantify the

relationships among image coordinates, ground coordinates, camera position, and

angular orientation of photograph by means of the two equations called “collinearity

equations” (Lillesand et al. 2004:180-181):

⎡ m ( X − X L ) + m12 (YP − YL ) + m13 (Z P − Z L ) ⎤

x p = − f ⎢ 11 P ⎥ (5.1)
⎣ m31 ( X P − X L ) + m32 (YP − YL ) + m33 (Z P − Z L ) ⎦

⎡ m ( X − X L ) + m22 (YP − YL ) + m23 (Z P − Z L ) ⎤

y p = − f ⎢ 21 P ⎥ (5.2)
⎣ m31 ( X P − X L ) + m32 (YP − YL ) + m33 (Z P − Z L ) ⎦
where
xP , yP = image coordinates of any point p
f = focal length
X P , YP , Z P = ground coordinates of point P
X L , YL , Z L = ground coordinates of exposure station L (perspective center)
m11 ,..., m33 = coefficients of a 3 × 3 rotation matrix defined by the angles

ω, φ , and κ that transforms the ground coordinate system to the image

coordinate system

It seems relatively rare for these six parameters of exterior orientation to be highly

accurate or even to be known for each photograph unless they are measured by an

airborne camera system equipped with Differential GPS and IMU (Inertial Measurement

Unit) system. Even though the parameters are unknown, they can be calculated from the

known X, Y, Z coordinates of a minimum of three GCPs based upon the collinearity

condition, where the light rays originating from those GCPs ( P ; X P , YP , Z P ) intersect
 89

through the image positions of the GCPs ( p ; xP , yP ) and resect at the perspective center

of the camera ( L ). A statistic technique called least squares adjustment will locate the

most probable positions of the image points ( xP , yP ) along with the GCPs ( X P , YP , Z P ) on

the same straight lines. This process is one of the major applications of the forementioned

equations and is called “space resection.”

The block triangulation technique distinguishes itself from single frame

orthorectification in that it is capable of simultaneously processing multiple images

bundled as a block8 and makes use of another important application of the collinearity

equations, “space intersection” or “space forward intersection.” Space intersection, by

definition, is “a procedure by which the X, Y, and Z coordinates of any point in the overlap

of a stereopair of tilted photographs can be determined” (Lillesand et al. 2004:183) Figure

5-14b illustrates the collinearity conditions associated with a stereopair of photographs.

As opposed to single frame orthorectification based solely on space resection, the block

triangulation technique implements a simultaneous application of space resection and

space intersection of all photographs in a block at once. This method, called “bundle

block adjustment,” demonstrates the error minimization and distribution for the entire

block and thus maintains a good alignment between adjacent images throughout the

assembled mosaic (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:20; Lillesand et al.

2004:183). Furthermore, a substantive quality and quantity of GCPs allows for the

creation of a Digital Terrain Model (DTM), a three-dimensional digital representation of

the earth’s surface or topography, for the overlap of a stereopair of aerial photographs.
 90

Figure 5-15. The WRS Path/Row scene boundaries of DEM mosaic at the periphery of
Pachacamac. Each orbit of the space shuttle within a cycle is designated as a path. Along this
path, the individual sensor frame center is designated as a row (Lillesand et al. 2004:417).
 91

In its most robust form, geometric correction simply resamples the image(s) after the

application of collinearity equations and does not eliminate the spatial discrepancies

caused by terrain relief. In order to properly remove those discrepancies, elevation

information such as DTM, DEM, and TIN (Triangulated Irregular Networks) is required to

be integrated during the correction process. Once this is done, the block triangulation

technique fulfills the three forementioned characteristics of softcopy photogrammetry

technique. The elevation dataset that I used for my mapping is a DEM of 90-by-90 m

spatial resolution derived from SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) interferometric

radar data available online for free at the website of Global Land Cover Facility, Institute

for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park (Global Land Cover

Facility 2004; Figure 5-15). Each scene is located according to the Worldwide Reference

System (WRS). The archaeological site of Pachacamac is located on the overlap between

P008R68, P007R068, and P007R069. A small portion near the upper edge of P007R069

was clipped. Data preparation processes of the downloaded DEM are described in

Appendix B.4 (“How to reproject a rater image”) and B.5 (“How to clip a subset from raster

image”).

Compared to simpler single frame orthorectification, it is somewhat hard to adopt

block triangulation because it assumes that the exterior orientation parameters are

known and a pair of photographs composes a stereopair. However, space resection can

calculate the angular tilt of photographs from the known GCP coordinates, and you can

actually use as a stereopair a set of two overlapping photographs acquired at

 92

approximately the same altitude, even though they do not fulfill all the conditions of a

stereopair. Hence, as much as possible, it would be reasonable to choose the block

triangulation technique for its higher accuracy. Based on the discussions above, the work

flow of block triangulation is summarized as: (1) input of camera orientation parameters,

(2) GCP measurements, (3) calculation of angular tilts of photographs from the know GCP

coordinates by means of the collinearity equations, (4) update of exterior orientation

parameters, (4) triangulation based on bundle block adjustment, and (5) resampling and

correction of terrain relief with reference to elevation information. The step-by-step

procedures of geometric corrections of aerial photographs are given in Appendix B.6

(“How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs (Phase I)”).

Our use of aerial photographs 626 and 649, a pair of pseudo-stereographic images

proved to be very problematic for a couple of reasons. First, regular camera calibration

certificate was not available. A document in lieu of calibration report, Informe Técnico

Fotográfico (Figure 5-16), which was provided by SAN, contained only: (1) project number

(PROYECTO; 6512-57-5), (2) picture numbers (FOTOS; 626-649), (3) date of shooting

(FECHA DE TOMA; March 12, 1957), (4) scale (ESCALA DE TOMA; 1:10,000 ft), (5)

airplane altitude (ESCALA DE VUELO; ca. 50 m ASL), and (6) focal length (DISTANCIA

FOCAL; 152.67 mm). It was lacking both interior and exterior orientation parameters

such as principal point, fiducial marks, and rotation angles (Figure 5-11a and 5-14a).

Interior orientation parameters cannot be calculated from the known coordinates of GCPs

as the rotation angles are worked out. Without the film coordinates of the principal point
 93

Figure 5-16. The only document available for the orthorectification process in lieu of regular
camera calibration reports (INFORME TECNICO FOTOGRAFICO). It contains only: (1) project
number (PROYECTO; 6512-57-5), (2) picture numbers (FOTOS; 626-649), (3) date of shooting
(FECHA DE TOMA; March 12, 1957), (4) scale (ESCALA DE TOMA; 1:10,000), (5) airplane
altitude (ESCALA DE VUELO; ca. 50 m ASL), and (6) focal length (DISTANCIA FOCAL; 152.67
mm). It lacks critical information for geometric corrections of photographs such as principal
points, fiducial points, and interior and exterior orientations.
 94

of each photograph, I had no choice but to define them as (0, 0) assuming that the optical

axis was perfectly perpendicular to the focal plane and thus the principal point was

placed completely in the center of the photo image with absolutely no displacement. The

film coordinates of fiducial marks were also required to be replaced with such theoretical

values. SAN’s website (n.d.) states that they have been using large-format (9-inch or

228-mm) Wild-type film cameras (as opposed to Zeiss-type) such as Leica RC30, 20, 10a,

and 10. According to FAQ of ESRI Japan’s website (ESRI Japan 2002), moreover,

approximate values of 106 and -106 can be used for the film coordinates of fiducial marks

in the photograph taken by 228-mm Wild-type camera. Although it goes without saying

that I must be prepared to face substantial margins of error as long as I use these

theoretical values for interior orientation parameters during the error correction

processes, I had no choice.

Furthermore, a closer look at its content led me to conclude that the document from

SAN is not only incomplete but also is quite dubious in regard to accuracy. The altitude of

50 m, for instance, is apparently hard to accept if you take into account that each

photograph covers the ground area of ca. 2,350 x 2,350 m. Supposed that the scale

(1:10,000 ft) and focal length (152.67 mm) stated in the document are true, the altitude

should be:

f 152.67 mm 0.15267 m
H'= = = = 465.3382m (5.3)
S ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 10,000 ft ⎠ ⎝ 3,048m ⎠
 95

The content of the document is internally inconsistent. This problem may be solved by

consulting the data strip shown on the margin of the photograph 649 (Figure 5-17). The

data strip confirms that the focal length is 152.67 mm as stated in the document from

SAN but concurrently indicates that the altitude at the time of exposure was 1,600 m

rather than either 50 or 465 m. This value sounds quite acceptable for the

forementioned ground area. According to the information of the data strip, the scale will

be as follows:

f 0.15267 m 1
S= = = or 1 : 10,480 (5.4)
H' 1,600 m 10,480

It would be safe to say that I should trust the data strip rather than the dubious

document provided by SAN.

Secondly, prior to the fieldwork, I had no coordinate information (points with X, Y,

and Z values) such as GPS readings that I could use as GCPs. The only available

document obtained from IGN (PUNTO ESTABLECIDO CONTROL SUPLEMENTARIO DE

TERCER ORDEN, Figure 5-18) indicates that somewhere NW of the inferred

superstructure on the SE portion of the highest rung of the Temple of the Sun is a firmly

established datum point. The datum cannot be recognized on either one of our aerial

photographs; therefore, it is useless for the purpose of GCP measurement.9 One of the

alternative ways to obtain GCP coordinates is to utilize the georeferenced topography map

and DEM. On the topography map layer displayed in ArcMap, using the Identify tool, you

can collect X-Y coordinates by clicking the spots at which you would like to locate your
 96

Figure 5-17. Data Strip of photograph 649 that consists of level bubble, clock, altimeter, and
focal length. Note that the bubble is way beyond the central circle and the altitude is 1.6
kilometers.

Figure 5-18. Coordinate information of the datum located allegedly on the top of the Temple
of the Sun, provided by Instituto Geográfico Nacional, Peru.
 97

GCPs (Figure 5-19). I took down several pairs of the coordinates shown in the Identify

Results and used them later to define the same spots on the photographs as GCPs. Here,

the points to be defined on the topography map should correspond to the same spots

recognizable on either of our two aerial photographs and concurrently to be evenly

scattered within the site area of the photographs (Figure 5-20). The GCPs that I defined

are listed in Table 5-1. In the same manner in which X-Y coordinates were collected, Z

coordinate (elevation) was also collected from DEM.

GCP #1 and 2, for instance, were collected respectively from one of the intersecting

points at which two streets of Antigua Panamericana Sur and Av. Lima cross each other,

and from Puente Lurín (the bridge of the Lurín River). Since these modern-day structures

showed me a discrete and solid appearance, it was relatively easy to define the spots.

Other GCPs, on the other hand, were collected from the archaeological site area that is

poorly depicted in the topography map. Therefore, as opposed to GCP # 1 and 2, it was

much more difficult to find the spots on the aerial photographs that are evenly distributed

and readily corresponded to the same spots on the topography map. IGN basically drew

nothing but rough outlines of the archaeological structures in their map. Besides,

compared to the aerial photographs, the depiction of those structures seems to be

partially wrong in size, proportion, and orientation. Realistically, the seven GCPs for 626

and nine for 626 were the maximum number of the points that I could define.

The resultant orthoimages were saved as an ERDAS IMAGINE Image file with *.img

extension. Superposition of topography map over the orthoimages shows that the best fit
 98

Figure 5-19. The “Identify Results” dialog window. The X-Y coordinates are being displayed
right above the property table in the right portion of the dialog, “Location: (293053.030594
8644971.451042).”

Figure 5-20. 10 Ground Control Points collected from topography map (X, Y coordinates) and
SRTM DEM (Z coordinate) and plotted over the orthorectified aerial photographs 626 and 649.
Note that the 10 GCPs are evenly distributed within the area of interest.
Table 5-1. Ground Control Points (GCPs) for geometric error correction. Note that the original Z coordinate for GCP#2, 53, is replaced by 20
(b). The original value of 53 collected from 90-by-90 m DEM was apparently unacceptable because the GCP#2 on Puente Lurín is located
below the 20-m contour line.

(a) Photograph 626

GCP# Description Type Usage X Y Z

1 Panamericana E Full Control 293053.030594 8644971.451042 32
3 Piramide V Full Control 293395.079902 8645003.121138 28
4 Mamacuna Full Control 293010.554617 8644706.332327 18
6 Cementerio Full Control 293554.620823 8644341.724585 30
7 Templo del Sol Full Control 293289.876711 8644015.938500 74
8 Coliseo Full Control 292886.856044 8643849.684808 8
10 Panamericana W Full Control 292049.206456 8644873.060726 9

(b) Photograph 649

GCP# Description Type Usage X Y Z

1 Panamericana E Full Control 293053.030594 8644971.451042 32
2 Puente Lurín Full Control 294124.830563 8645145.555089 53-->20
3 Piramide V Full Control 293395.079902 8645003.121138 28
4 Mamacuna Full Control 293010.554617 8644706.332327 18
5 Piramide XIV Full Control 293757.006375 8644685.831222 40
6 Cementerio Full Control 293554.620823 8644341.724585 30
7 Templo del Sol Full Control 293289.876711 8644015.93850 74
8 Coliseo Full Control 292886.856044 8643849.684808 8
9 Camacho Primero Full Control 294524.620987 8643777.783216 12
 100

(less than 2.5 m) can be seen in the sacred precinct of Sector I (Figure 5-21a). Larger

misalignments are likely to pertain to the areas of higher elevation with no GCP

measurement. In fact, the worst fit (ca. 9 m) is found on one of the highest hills within the

site area where the Pyramid with Ramp III is located and concurrently no Z coordinate

was measured (Figure 5-21b). Considering our data source limitations, however, the

largest misalignment is still within the limits of what is allowed. What I would like to

emphasize here is that the depiction of archaeological architecture in the topography map

may be too poor to use as the criterion for the determination of accuracy. Although I used

this topography map as the basis of accuracy, in order to perform more accurate

orthorectification, it is necessary to obtain more reliable GCPs of higher accuracy such as

Differential GPS readings, which are to be taken in the subsequent fieldwork.

5.1.3. On-screen Digitizing. The final process of prototype map creation is to digitize

the archaeological structures on the orthorectified aerial photographs, and contour lines,

elevation points, and some other modern-day features on the topography map. The

process requires you to place all vertices, to trace the outlines of features, and to locate

the points simply by clicking the mouse button and thus is essentially time-consuming

and tedious. This was performed using ArcCatalog and ArcMap. Each of the digitized

points, lines, and polygons was saved as a shapefile, ESRI vector data format. A

step-by-step procedure for this process is given in Appendix B.7 (“How to digitize ground

features in orthophotos and topography map”).

 101

(a) Best Fit (less than 2.5 m) in the sacred precinct of Sector I

(b) Worst Fit (ca. 9 m) near the Pyramid with Ramp III

Figure 5-21. Superposition of topography map over the orthophoto (649).

 102

The most important thing to pay attention to here is the decision about which

feature type to select for the new shapefiles: Point, Polyline, Polygon, or MultiPoint10. In

regular GIS projects, transportation networks (e.g., roads and railways), rivers, and utility

pipe lines are represented by line features, while buildings and land parcels are recorded

as polygon features. During these digitizing processes, simplifications of real-world

objects accompanied by varying levels of information loss take place. For example, there

is hardly any road that has a constant width in any part of it. It would be impractical to

faithfully depict a road with non-constant width as an irregular polygon. Instead, one just

places all vertices along the center line of the road and, if necessary, register a central

value for its width in attribute table. The basic assumption for the simplification here is

that roads retain constant widths. Such simplification is true of other feature types such

as buildings recorded as polygons. The first priority is generally given to the record of

accurate locations of and relative positioning among ground features rather than the

depiction of accurate and precise shapes of them.

In archaeological mapping, plan views created by Total Station depict archaeological

structures by sets of contour lines. The structures to be recorded do not necessarily

retain their original sharp edges, and rather most of them have been badly eroded. In

essence, archaeological structures show varied appearances from discrete constructions

to piles of soil depending on their state of preservation. Those that are badly eroded may

be recorded more efficiently by contour lines, whereas those remaining intact or

reconstructed may be depicted by their solid outlines. Thus, feature types and, in turn,
 103

mapping techniques may ultimately need to be selected in accordance with the state of

preservation of the structures.

For my map making task, however, since we adopted a combination of aerial

photographs and topography maps rather than location survey, archaeological structures

were recorded by precisely tracing their outlines. Furthermore, I had to make a decision

as to whether to depict them by lines or polygons. Starting and end points of some of the

wall structures, for instance, were not readily recognizable. Sometimes the original

extents and forms could be inferred from their current state of preservation; however, this

was not the case with every structure. For this reason, I depicted the structures as sets of

lines for the time being, partially reconstructing the portions missing due to erosion

and/or destruction, although polygon features were more useful for many occasions in

terms of their applicability to spatial analysis such as three-dimensional representation

of the structures.

Craig (2000) and Craig and Aldenderfer (2003) put forth a new real-time digital

recording system of excavation data by means of digital camera and pen-top tablet PC.

They take pictures for each gird of excavation unit, rectify them in GIS software, and

digitize the objects of interest (e.g., artifacts, structural features, different soil types) as

polygon features. Traditional artifact inventories and other field observations are stored

in attribute tables associated with their corresponding polygon features. Polygon would

be the most appropriate feature type for within-structure, large-scale mapping as far as

the objects to be recorded retain discrete boundaries. Once we invent optimum technique
 104

for real-time digital recording of continuous surface such as gradual changes in soil type,

a major shift in scale (from excavation to survey scale) and timing (from post-fieldwork to

real-time recording) of GIS-linked database construction may take place. However, there

has been no agreement among archaeologists as to how within-site and within-structure

objects should be registered and stored in GIS overlay for future analytical purpose. This

may indicate the fact that many of the previous archaeological applications of GIS have

not narrowed down from the regional or inter-site level at which sites are represented

merely by points.

In addition, I subsidiarily utilized image processing software, Adobe Photoshop

Creative Suite, during the digitizing process. Decreasing brightness and increasing

contrast will sharpen the edges of and enhance the vertical intervals between ground

features. This may help you more easily digitize them or even find something that you can

not recognize on the ground. Figure 5-22 compares two images of Templo Viejo in the

original scanned photograph 649 (a) and in a processed one (b). Note that the shadows

are more clearly highlighted so that the vertical intervals can be readily recognized in (b).

Without intensive excavation or field reconnaissance it would be quite difficult to make

out details of architectural constructions; however, this technique is very useful in a

preliminary study.

Once the digitizing process was completed, I superimposed all the products created

above one over another: topography map, orthoimages, archaeological structures,

contour lines, and elevation points from bottom to top (Figure 5-23). Formatting this set
 105

(a)

(b)

Figure 5-22. A comparison of two images of Templo Viejo in the original, scanned aerial
photograph 649 (a) and in a processed photograph by means of a simple image adjustment (b).
Decreasing brightness and increasing contrast will sharpen the edges of ground features.
 106

Figure 5-23. Prototype base map layers of Pachacamac. It is quite difficult to digitize all the
details of archaeological structures.
 107

of data layers as a printable map, I printed out the overlay using a large plotter in

preparation for the usage in the fieldwork during the summer of 2004. As you see in

Figure 5-24, I could go no further than rough drawings in some parts of the site area.

Although the aerial photographs that I used this time show a great deal of architectural

features, without examining them in field, it seems rather difficult to digitize all the

details of archaeological structures and in turn to create a very precise map. For the

purpose of making up for this shortage, I spent seven weeks in Peru for ground-truth

checking.

5.2. Phase II: Ground-Truth Checking and GPS Measurements

The main objective of the 7-week fieldwork from mid-June to the end of July 2004

was to carry out a ground-truth checking of archaeological structures in order to refine

my prototype base map taking into account the temporal changes that have taken place

since the time our aerial photographs were taken almost 50 years ago. Verifying each

structure digitized and searching for unknown structures that I could not recognize on

the aerial photographs, I measured in and hand-drew the detailed plan views of over 30

architectural structures. Since they were carefully drawn with reference to the structural

outlines digitized on the orthoimages and thinly printed on letter-size papers, they retain

a good deal of locational accuracy.

During this drawing process, I attempted to differentiate the preservation state of

structures that could be categorized into three types: (1) reconstructed to varying degree,
 108

Figure 5-24. Prototype site map of Pachacamac.

 109

(2) well preserved enough to delimit the form, and (3) collapsed and obscure. Uhle’s (1903)

technique of depicting buildings of uncertain forms by means of thin lines helped me

represent the third category. My primary concern was focused on depicting the large

structures and a dozen of small miscellaneous structures scattered here and there that

have not drawn the attention of archaeologists to date. Although I spent almost all of the

seven weeks of my stay in Peru on the field checking and refinement task, I had a chance

to study some of the major temples that have already been mapped and published

(Eeckhout 2003; Franco 1998; Michczyński et al. 2003; Ravines n.d.; Ray 1991; and

Shimada 1991); nonetheless, as I noted earlier in this chapter, some structures could not

be properly examined primarily due to time constraint.

Toward the end of my fieldwork, I had the good fortune to take a series of GPS

measurements in Sectors I and II. This was performed during the three days from July 25

to 27, 2004 in association with Dr. Hartmut Tschauner (Seoul National University, Korea)

and Dr. Ursel Wagner (Technische Universität München, Germany) for the purpose of

patching up some displacements of my prototype base map derived seemingly from the

use of IGN topography maps as the only reference for the basis of accuracy. Thanks to the

courtesy of Tschauner, I could use his Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS (RTK DGPS;

Leica Geosystems, GS20 Professional Data Mapper; Figure 5-25).

Conventional single GPS receivers can usually provide positions with accuracy of no

less than ca. 10 to 15 m because of numerous sources of errors.11 This may be sufficient

depending on your need. However, if you require positioning accuracy of better than 10 m
 110

Figure 5-25. Leica Geosystems, GS20 Professional Data Mappers, Reference Station (near)
and Rover Receiver (far), by courtesy of Dr. Hartmut Tschauner (Seoul National University,
Korea). Differential GPS technique requires one GPS receiver (Reference Station) to be
located at a known reference point and a second or more receivers (Rover[s]) at the location
to be measured.
 111

and wish to eliminate errors, you will inevitably need to adopt a more accurate technique

such as “Differential GPS,” which requires another GPS receiver as a “Reference Station”

or “Control.” As opposed to the single receiver GPS, this technique provides significantly

higher accuracy of 1 m, 0.5 m, or even 10 cm margins of error. DGPS requires one GPS

receiver (Reference Station) to be located at a reference point and a second or more

receivers called “Rover[s]” at the location to be measured. The information from the GPS

receivers (both Reference Station and Rover) is combined to determine the position of the

Rover.

The difference between the known coordinates and the GPS-calculated coordinates

is the error that needs to be corrected for the accuracy of survey or mapping grade GPS

applications. The correction of this error can be done either by bringing the data from the

Reference Station and Rover together in an asynchronous, post-processing mode after

the field measurements are completed (Post Processed Kinematic or PPK), or by

instantaneously broadcasting the error correction information produced by the

Reference Station to the Rover for real-time corrections (Real Time Kinematic or RTK)

(Lillesand et al. 2004:34). There are two broad categories of RTK correction messages

transferred through different protocols: (1) code differential messages for meter level

positioning accuracy, and (2) carrier phase differential messages for centimeter level

accuracy. The media for communication between the Reference Station and the Rover

include direct cable connection, radio modem, WiFi (Wireless Fidelity based on IEEE

802.11b specification) device, and so forth. Radio modem provides the greatest flexibility
 112

and allows for a Reference Station to communicate with multiple Rovers at a time. The

GS20 Professional Data Mapper that I used employs the carrier phase differential

messages of centimeter level accuracy to be sent by a radio modem for RTK corrections.

The only serious problem prior to the measurements was that we did not have any

known reference point within the site area. Strictly speaking, as I mentioned above, we

could not find the datum point that is said to be on the top of the Temple of the Sun

(Figure 5-18). Instead, we found a concrete datum around the east corner of the same

rung of the temple. Since these two datum points are obviously separate from each other,

it can be hardly said that they are the same point and the gap between them should be

taken as margin of error. It was later known as a result of GPS measurements that the

two datum points are separated by over 40 meters horizontally and ca. 16 meters

vertically. This disconcerting gap will be discussed later.

As a last resort, consequently, I decided to arbitrarily set up a new reference point

and put the Reference Station at this spot. The location of the point was considered from

the aspect of security management of the equipment and signal strength from satellites.

It was finally placed at an open space on the NW side of the Pilgrims’ Plaza, where other

project members were carrying out excavations. Because the coordinates of this new

reference are not properly verified yet, we should acknowledge a fudge factor of at most ca.

15 m for the exact locations of all GPS points for the time being, whereas the relative

positioning between them can be thought of as quite accurate with a margin of error of

less than 0.5 m. This means that we could not take full advantage of RTK Differential GPS.
 113

Measurements without known coordinates, strictly speaking, are nothing but a set of

control points floating in a standalone mapping space which does not tie in with any

legitimate reference network. Nonetheless, in case the coordinates of our new reference

are properly verified or the IGN datum point on the Temple of the Sun is found in the

future, the locations of all GPS points will be systematically moved as a single unit to the

right positions with a significantly high accuracy.

The points to be measured, or the locations of the Rover receiver, were placed on

noticeable spots that can be precisely identified on the aerial photographs as well (e.g., an

intersecting point of well-preserved walls). They were also evenly scattered within the site

area (Figure 5-26). A total of 23 points were set up and measured. They include the

concrete datum points on the Temple of the Sun and a small platform mound called

“Ushnu” along the south edge of the Pilgrims’ Plaza, both of which were measured for

future reference. The measuring process was completed within approximately 20

minutes per point; however, we frequently suffered from abnormal terminations of the

Reference Station. Every time it occurred, we had to return to the receiver and restart it.

Therefore, it took us three days to measure 23 points.

5.3. Phase III: Data Post-Processing and Consummation of the Final Maps

After the fieldwork, eight months were spent for data post-processing and

consummation of the final maps. These processes include: (1) raw data import and

conversion of DGPS measurements into a shapefile, (2) creation of a new 10-by-10 m

 114

0 50 100 200
Meters

Figure 5-26. A reference point and 23 GCPs measured by an RTK Differential GPS. Note that

the points are evenly distributed within the site area.

 115

DEM out of the new DGPS readings and other existing elevation data extracted from

topography map, (3) deuter-triangulation of the aerial photographs based upon the new

DEM and DTM, (4) spatial adjustments of vector datasets of architectures in reference to

the resultant orthoimages and the small detail plans drawn in the field, and (5)

reproduction and import of clean copies of the field drawings. Figure 5-27 illustrates the

work flow of these post-fieldwork data processing procedures.

5.3.1. Data Post-Processing of GPS Readings. Differential GPS measurements taken

during the fieldwork were post-processed by Hartmut Tschauner. He used Leica

Geosystems’ GIS DataPRO to import and convert raw GPS data into a multipoint shapefile

(Figure 5-26). Attributes such as “Point ID,” “Latitude,” “Longitude,” and “Orthoheight”

were stored in a dBASE table associated with the shapefile (Table 5-2). Since the resultant

multipoint shapefile that I received from Tschauner was already projected by WGS84, I

re-projected it using PSAD56 and UTM18S (Appendix B.8, “How to change projection and

coordinate system”). Even though the shapefile was still a “floating” map layer, when it

was superimposed over the topography map layer, no displacement between them was

apparent at a glance.

According to Tschauner, however, post-processing was somewhat problematic. First,

since we did not have a known reference point as I noted above, Tschauner had no choice

but to perform a single-point processing of the first reference measurement (REF00001,

REF) and set the coordinates of subsequent reference measurements (REF00002 and
 116

Prototype Map Creation

Contour Lines Archaeological

Digitizing Structures
Shapefile
Shapefile 1

Elevation Points
Shapefile

GCP
Creating Surface
Shapefile

Aerial Photographs
Digital Elevation
Converting
Model

Scanned
Aerial Photographs

Deuter- DGPS
camera Orthorectifying Raw Data
calibration certificate
(incomplete)

Orthorectified
Camera Report
Aerial Photographs 2 Printing
(PSAD56/UTM18S)

Adjusting
& Modifying
Field Drawings 1

Fieldwork
Archaeological
Printing Structures
Shapefile 2

Archaeological
Making
Structures
Fair Copies

Field Drawings 2 Archaeoligcal

(PSAD56/UTM18S)
Scanning
& Rectifying Structures
(PSAD56/UTM18S)

Figure 5-27. The work flow of post-fieldwork data processing (Phase III). Phase III processes
include (1) conversion of DGPS measurements into a shapefile, (2) creation of a new 10-by-10
m DEM, (3) deuter-orthorectification of the aerial photographs, (4) spatial adjustments of
vector datasets of architectures, and (5) production and import of clean copies of the field
drawings.
 Table 5-2. The dBASE table of attributes for GPS readings.

POINTID LATITUDE LONGITUDE ORTHHEIGHT GEOIDSEP COORDCLASS ATTRIBUTES MEASTIME

POINT00001 12 15 34.249484 S 76 54 6.293248 W 34.28727 23.77 MEAS USHNU 2004/7/25
POINT00002 12 15 31.732302 S 76 54 3.436298 W 38.34640 23.79 MEAS PWR13 2004/7/25
POINT00003 12 15 31.435728 S 76 54 6.552905 W 34.94863 23.78 MEAS ROOM 2004/7/25
POINT00004 12 15 35.527706 S 76 54 8.656139 W 34.65171 23.76 MEAS POST 2004/7/25
POINT00005 12 15 34.443152 S 76 54 11.670949 W 33.35287 23.75 MEAS WALLCRNR 2004/7/25
POINT00006 12 15 29.767245 S 76 54 11.336116 W 30.42555 23.76 MEAS EWSTREET 2004/7/25
POINT00007 12 15 28.651432 S 76 54 0.768424 W 25.99706 23.80 MEAS PWR12 2004/7/25
POINT00008 12 15 28.453808 S 76 53 56.085817 W 28.43733 23.82 MEAS WALLCRNR2 2004/7/25
POINT00009 12 15 32.429485 S 76 53 53.996429 W 31.45113 23.82 MEAS PWR15N1 2004/7/25
POINT00010 12 15 32.429639 S 76 53 53.996296 W 31.45656 23.82 MEAS PWR15N2 2004/7/25
POINT00011 12 15 37.247979 S 76 54 2.650071 W 51.38184 23.78 MEAS PINTADO 2004/7/26
POINT00012 12 15 46.521210 S 76 54 5.014542 W 96.06675 23.76 MEAS DATUMTMPLSOL 2004/7/26
POINT00013 12 15 47.418441 S 76 54 6.092734 W 93.69171 23.75 MEAS TMPLSOL 2004/7/26
POINT00014 12 15 26.236323 S 76 54 19.216759 W 16.40138 23.74 MEAS MAMACUNA 2004/7/26
POINT00015 12 15 12.473550 S 76 53 56.424005 W 36.65530 23.85 MEAS STORAGE 2004/7/26
POINT00016 12 15 15.514442 S 76 53 44.185453 W 51.75549 23.89 MEAS TAURICHUMPI 2004/7/26
POINT00017 12 15 23.285258 S 76 53 48.424981 W 54.14340 23.86 MEAS QUIPUHOUSE 2004/7/26
POINT00018 12 15 34.823621 S 76 54 6.243773 W 32.49834 23.77 MEAS DATUMUSHNU 2004/7/26
POINT00019 12 15 23.214698 S 76 53 57.944574 W 51.62682 23.82 MEAS PWR2 2004/7/26
POINT00020 12 15 26.098364 S 76 54 6.614236 W 40.56282 23.79 MEAS PWR1 2004/7/27
POINT00021 12 15 23.846480 S 76 54 11.573867 W 31.22612 23.77 MEAS STORAGE2 2004/7/27
POINT00022 12 15 31.367090 S 76 53 44.840153 W 42.91762 23.86 MEAS EASTEND 2004/7/27
POINT00023 12 15 21.342952 S 76 53 54.325657 W 68.24042 23.84 MEAS PWR3 2004/7/27
POINT00024 12 15 16.371963 S 76 54 3.928943 W 34.93833 23.81 MEAS PWR6 2004/7/27
REF00001 12 15 32.493755 S 76 54 5.680532 W 33.83989 23.78 REF PLAZAREF1 2004/7/25
REF00002 12 15 32.493760 S 76 54 5.680530 W 33.83990 23.78 CTRL PLAZAREF2 2004/7/26
REF00003 12 15 32.493760 S 76 54 5.680530 W 33.83990 23.78 CTRL PLAZAREF3 2004/7/27
 118

REF00003, CTRLs) to the ones produced by the initial single-point processing. This may

result in substantial positioning error of 10 to 15 m.

Second, the two reference point measurements from the second and third days

could not be properly saved probably because the Reference Station stopped logging

somehow. As a result, the GPS raw data were not associated with point IDs and lacked

attribute information, including antenna heights. Point IDs randomly switched for the

tracks without IDs and the software abended12 when he attempted to re-assign tracks to

their proper point IDs. After several runs, he finally succeeded to process all points with

apparently excellent accuracy. Nonetheless, two measurements collected on the same

points by chance (POINT00009 and POINT00010 in Table 5-2) showed us a significant

accuracy of the relative positioning between measured points. Remarkably, these two

measurements have only 6.2-mm difference.

Third, given the lack of antenna heights for the Reference Station on the second and

third days, some points measured by the Rover had wrong elevations. These wrong

elevations in the attribute table (ORTHOHEIGHT) had to be corrected manually with the

recorded antenna height of 1.187 m for the second day (July 26) and 1.195 m for the

third day (July 27).

Fourth, elevations may not be very accurate with no locally fitting geoid model for

Peru. Elevations measured by GPS are ellipsoidal heights above the reference ellipsoid.

Since the ellipsoid is the reference surface for horizontal positions, they need to be

converted to orthometric heights that are above a geoid and related to mean sea level.
 119

Geoid is a mathematical model for vertical reference that “would be formed if the oceans

were allowed to flow freely under the continents to create a single undisrupted global sea

level covering the entire planet Earth and adjusted to gravity” (Lo and Yeung 2002:36).

Figure 5-28 illustrates the relationships between earth’s irregular surface, ellipsoid, and

geoid. The conversion of ellipsoidal heights to orthometric heights can be carried out by

interpolation using a GPS tailored geoid model. However, the only geoid model available

for Peru is EGM96, a worldwide model that may not possibly be as good as a local model

specifically for Peru would be. Locally fitting geoid model for Peru does not exist at this

point (Tschauner 2005, personal communication).

Let us examine the accuracy of this DGPS-measured GCP shapefile, superimposing

it over the orthophoto layers 626 and 649.13 Figure 5-29 illustrates the displacements

between DGPS-measured points (starting points of the arrows) and the corresponding

points in the orthophotos resampled with SRTM-arc3 DEM (endpoints of the arrows).

Sector I, which showed the best fit between topography map and orthophotos (less than

2.5 m), now shows much larger displacements of 5.12 m at the minimum (Templo

Pintado) and 8.41 m at the maximum (Templo del Sol) and, in turn, indicates that DGPS

measurements do not necessarily fit the topography map that I have utilized considering

as the basis of accuracy. Out of the four problems Tschauner pointed out, the first is

clearly recognized here. How should we consider this horizontal gap? Which is more

accurate, topography map based on traditional location survey or GCPs collected by RTK

Differential GPS?
Figure 5-28. The relationships between earth’s irregular surface, ellipsoid, and geoid (Taken from Lo and Yeung 2002:35 and modified).
 121

Figure 5-29. Displacements between DGPS-measured points and the corresponding points in
the orthophotos resampled with SRTM-arc3 DEM.
 122

As you can see in Figure 5-29, the two-dimensional displacements between the

DGPS-measured points and their corresponding points in orthophotos show relatively

constant magnitude (mean=4.91, 5.31; standard deviation=1.81, 1.50) and directionality

(east-to-west). The systematic displacements may be attributed to the positioning error of

the reference point due to the limitation of single-point processing technique without

known coordinates. It is inferred that the right place of the reference point (and in turn

other points collected by the Rover) would be located ca. 5 m east of its current position.

In addition, the fluctuations in magnitude of the displacements may be because of the

persistent displacements caused by terrain relief. The DEM that I used for geometric error

corrections is too coarse to completely eliminate the displacements.

There are not only horizontal gaps but also vertical gaps between the topography

map and DGPS readings. The topography map produced by IGN plots an elevation point

on top of the Temple of the Sun that is 80.9 m above mean sea level. The document

obtained from IGN provides a close value of 78.26 m for the datum on the highest rung of

the temple (Figure 5-18). On the other hand, our two DGPS measurements on the same

rung of the temple as the two points above have heights respectively of 93.69 and 96.07 m.

Since there is no large undulation on top of the temple mound, these vertical

discrepancies of over 15 m baffled me. As Tschauner points out, they may be attributed to

the use of globally fitting geoid model (EGM96) for interpolation of orthometric heights.

Considering the difference in the level of technology, another possibility is that there may

have been measurement errors during IGN’s location survey and thus we should take our
 123

measurements as more accurate.

It may not be until we verify the coordinates of our reference point, obtain more

precise and accurate DEM for triangulation, and gain a locally fitting geoid model for Peru

that we can replace IGN’s topography maps as the basis of accuracy by our new DGPS

readings. Nonetheless, I adopted the DGPS readings in order to take advantage of the

accuracy of its relative positioning and used them for GCPs during the new DEM and

DTM creation and the subsequent triangulation processes. Because I used the GCPs, the

reference point that has horizontal discrepancy of at least 5 m, resulting orthophotos and

archaeological structures to be digitized on those images must be also out of alignment.

However, the systematic displacements of the digitized shapefiles, as I noted above, can

theoretically be corrected to be self-consistent by moving all of the objects in the shapefile

as a single unit to the legitimate position of reference point when its coordinates are

verified.

5.3.2. Creation of New DEMs. The multipoint shapefile of DGPS-measured points was

used to create more precise DEMs of finer spatial resolution in combination with contour

lines and elevation points shapefiles digitized on the topography map layer (Figure 5-30).

This was performed primarily for the purpose of deuter-orthorectification of aerial

photographs, which is to be discussed in the next section. The lack of legitimate reference

point and locally fitting geoid model seems to have given rise to unexpected displacements

in both horizontal and vertical directions between the datasets from two different sources
 124

Figure 5-30. DGPS-measured points, elevation points, and contour lines.

 125

(RTK DGPS measurements and topography map). However, the horizontal gap between

them turned out to be no more than 10 m. Since the ground resolution of the resulting

DEM, which is automatically determined by the software, is 10 m, the same points in the

different elevation datasets may fall in the same pixel of the output DEM or different

pixels next to each other. This indicates that the horizontal displacement will be within

one pixel at maximum and may be accepted as a margin of error. Vertical gaps ranging

from ca. 0.5 to 15 m, on the other hand, seem to be way beyond acceptable range if taken

at face value. As Figure 5-30 shows, however, in that many of the DGPS-measured points

are concentrated in the center of the site area where elevation points are scarce and

contour lines are divided, they are complementary. Only a few points measured on top of

the multi-level platforms are exhibiting a great amount of vertical gaps from contour lines

and elevation points. Thus, the integration of the three elevation datasets to create new

DEMs is thought to be feasible and rather favorable irrespective of displacements.

Merely for the purpose of comparing the results, I created three DEMs in three

different combinations of the three datasets: (1) only GDPS readings, (2) combination of

contour lines and elevation points, and (3) all of three elevation datasets (Figure 5-31).

Needless to say, the third is most accurate. The output range of the first is quite narrow

and useless. Because of the small number of input points (23 points), precision is not

satisfactory, either. The second and third both look seemingly good, but they differ greatly

in the site area. In the second that depended only on contour lines and elevation points,

elevation information is originally very scarce in the center of the site area and
 126

Figure 5-31. Comparison of three newly created DEMs.

 127

interpolated from the points around it. Therefore, it does not represent the heights of

large monumental structures (e.g., the Pyramids with Ramps) tightly-packed in the

central zone of Sector II and thus is rather sort of a reconstruction of original terrain

surface before the site was constructed upon it. The third, in contrast, represents not

sufficiently but more in detail actual landscape of the site area. This is most suitable for

orthorectification of aerial photographs.

The procedure of DEM creation is described in detail in Appendix B.9 (“How to create

a new DEM out of multipoint and line features”). I employed the Terrain Surface

Interpolation technique of ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6. For the type of output file, I selected

Float Single (32-bit values from 0 to 1) that retains precision and concurrently keeps file

size relatively small.

5.3.3. Deuter-Orthorectification of Aerial Photographs. The third step of my

post-fieldwork data processing is to perform block triangulation of aerial photographs

again in two ways to achieve a higher accuracy. First, I followed exactly the same

procedure as the previous one but with the new GCPs collected using RTK DGPS (Table

5-2) and resampled the photo images with the new DEM created above instead of

SRTM-arc3 DEM of 90-by-90 m spatial resolution. Secondly, more importantly, prior to

the resampling process I performed automated extraction of a DTM (Digital Terrain

Model) from the overlap of the two aerial photographs using ERDAS IMAGINE OrthoBASE

Pro and used it for DEM during another block triangulation process. The latter provides
 128

orthoimages based on a very precise DTM of 1-m spatial resolution but covers only the

approximately 50%-overlap of the aerial photographs, which corresponds to a western

half of the “inner city,” whereas the former covers the entire areas of Sector I and II. The

detailed procedures of DTM extraction and subsequent block triangulation are discussed

in Appendix B.10 (“How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs through

an automated DTM extraction (Phase III)”).

DTM is a three-dimensional digital representation of the earth’s surface. It is

important to note that it does not necessarily represent the man-made (e.g., buildings)

and natural (e.g., trees) features located on the earth’s surface. In this sense, DTM needs

to be distinguished from DSM (Digital Surface Model) that represents the elevation

associated with the earth’s surface including all man-made and natural features (Leica

Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:65). Major applications of DTM include (1)

determining the extent of a watershed, (2) extracting a drainage network for a watershed,

(3) determining the slope and aspect associated with a geographic region, (4) modeling

and planning for telecommunications, (5) orthorectifying, (6) preparing three-dimensional

simulations, (7) analyzing Volumetric Change, (8) estimating River Channel Change, and

(9) creating contour maps (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:68-69). This

indicates that DTM is used primarily for regional-scale or larger scale analyses, which do

not necessarily require very high precision and accuracy.

In addition to the input stereopair of images (e.g., aerial photographs and satellite

images) as the primary data source, various other techniques and approaches can be
 129

used to collect elevation information from the earth’s surface for the automatic extraction

of DTM. They involve ground surveying (e.g., Total Station and GPS), traditional

photogrammetry, digital stereo plotters, digitized topography maps, radar, Light

Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), and so forth (Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division

2002b:66-68). I employed ground surveying and digitized topography map. Generally, the

former is highly accurate, but very time-consuming. The latter, in contrast, is not as

accurate, but a feasible option when appropriate elevation data are not available.

Figure 5-32 shows three-dimensional representations of the site area: (a) aerial

photograph 649 orthorectified using DGPS readings and DTM; (b) DTM extracted from

our pseudo-stereopair of aerial photographs 626 and 649; and (c) quality of DTM.

Contour lines shapefile, which was created during the process of DTM extraction, is

superimposed over these three datasets for reference. As Figure 5-33 and 5-34 illustrates,

the use of DGPS points for GCP and the new 10-by-10 m DEM and DTM for resampling

greatly reduced the displacements between DGPS points and the corresponding points in

the orthophotos compared to the previous trial in the pre-fieldwork data processing.

As with the case of DTM, block triangulation and other orthorectification techniques

are most likely to be suitable essentially for terrain surface creation and spatial analysis

at regional or inter-site level rather than for within-site mapping purpose. Unless you can

obtain a sizable number of accurate GCPs, DEMs with highly fine resolution, and other

supplementary elevation information (e.g., dimensions and orientations of buildings), it

would be impossible to precisely depict the landscape of archaeological structures in the

 130

Figure 5-32. 3D representations of the site area: (a) aerial photograph 649 orthorectified
using DGPS readings and Digital Terrain Model (DTM); (b) DTM extracted from the stereopair
of aerial photographs 626 and 649; and (c) quality of DTM. Contour lines are superimposed
over the images for reference.
 131

Figure 5-33. Displacements between Ground Control Points (DGPS measurements) and the
corresponding points in the orthophotos resampled with 10-by-10 m DEM.
 132

Figure 5-34. Displacements between Ground Control Points (DGPS measurements) and the
corresponding points in the orthophotos resampled with extracted DTM.
 133

central area of the site both in two- and three-dimensions. There seem to be further

correction techniques for this purpose, but they are apparently out of scope of this thesis.

Therefore, in order to refine our map to be more precise and accurate in terms of

architectural details, follow-up surveys by means of Total Station will be absolutely

imperative. Digital recording system put forward by Craig and Aldenderfer (2003) and

Craig (2000) may also be helpful.

5.3.4. Spatial Adjustment of Vector Datasets. The on-screen digitizing during the

pre-fieldwork prototype map preparation was performed on a pseudo-stereopair of aerial

photographs orthorectified without critical information such as reliable GCPs and

appropriate camera information. The lack of that critical information did not allow me to

raise the accuracy of geometric corrections up to the desired level (Figure 5-21). As I noted

above, the structures digitized on the resultant orthophotos inevitably inherited

unignorable spatial discrepancies from their original positions. Consequently, spatial

adjustment of those vector datasets was essential.

The discrepancies between the DGPS points and their corresponding points in the

orthophotos were greatly reduced through the deuter-orthorectification process. This

indicated that not only the locations but also the sizes, shapes, and orientations of the

archaeological structures were properly corrected. Thus, simple ambulation of the

digitized structures in a horizontal direction in accordance with the DGPS readings was

not sufficient. Most of the structures required to be digitized again.

 134

The orthophotos resampled with the extracted DTM showed best fits with the DGPS

readings (Figure 5-34), but the area covered was limited to the west half of the site.

Moreover, some of the structures with tall walls or at high altitude (e.g., The Convent of

Mamacona, Pyramids with Ramps I, II, and III) in these orthophotos got their walls

erroneously twisted (Figure 5-35). In such cases, I consulted my field drawings and

measurements for the correct shapes and orientations of structures. As for the major

ceremonial mounds that were not included in my field drawings and measurements (e.g.,

the Temple of the Sun and the Pyramids with Ramps), there were a few of published plan

views that could be used for reference (Eeckhout 2003, 2004; Ravines n.d.; Ray 1991;

Shimada 1991). What you have to be concerned about when using traditional hardcopy

maps is that those maps accompanied by north arrows and scale bars may look

planimetrically true, but their sizes and orientations are significantly different from those

measured in the field and our orthophotos. For the area out of range of the

DTM-resampled orthophotos, I digitized on the orthophoto 649 resampled with the

10-by-10 m DEM that were less accurate but covered the whole area of the site. The larger

displacements between the DGPS points and the corresponding points in the digitized

structures (Figure 5-33) were corrected by moving groups of the vector features as a unit

to the nearest DGPS points. It is important to note that the locations of these digitized

structures may be corrected again when the coordinates of our new reference point in the

Pilgrims’ Plaza is properly verified or the IGN datum point on the Temple of the Sun is

found in the future.

 135

Figure 5-35. An example of twisted walls (The Convent of Mamacona).

 136

5.3.5. Clean Copies of Field Drawings. All of my field drawings inserted in Appendix C

(“FIELD DRAWINGS”) were originally sketched in the field (see 5.2. “Phase II:

Ground-truth Checking and GPS Measurements”) and later redrawn carefully on

transparent graph papers superimposed over a printed version of archaeological

architectures shapefile for reference (Figure 5-36). The scale was fixed to 1:500 for all

drawings and the intersections of X- and Y-coordinate grid lines were marked by

crosshairs every 500 m so that the drawings could be rectified more accurately. Each of

the completed drawings were xeroxed to eliminate the light blue grids on the graph papers

and to make complete black-and-white plates. Those plates were then scanned and

rectified in accordance with the same datum and plane coordinate system as other data

layers (PSAD56 and UTM18S) so that they can be displayed and manipulated in GIS

overlays. I put coordinate grids on each drawing, by means of which one can integrate

those hand-drawn maps in his or her own GIS database.

 137

Figure 5-36. Field drawings were drawn fairly on transparent graph papers superimposed over
printed shapefiles for reference.
 138

Notes

1 TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) is an image file format designed and developed
by Aldus and Microsoft in the 1980s to gain a universal translator of graphics across
various computing platforms; however, it requires nonstandard, often redundant,
extensions to enjoy most useful functions (e.g., lossless 24-bit color). It is ironical that
the incompatibility of extensions has led some to explain TIFF as “Thousands of
Incompatible File Formats.”
2 Map Algebra is a computer language for developers with which ArcGIS is written.

This is different from a cartographic concept with the same name originally proposed by
Tomlin (1990).
3 The aerial photograph 649 (Figure 3.8) was inverted as a matter of convenience;

however it was originally taken from the east.

4 The overlap between photographs 626 and 649 turned out to be 51.295% during

the procedures of DTM (Digital Terrain Model) production, which are discussed in
section 5.3.3.
5 The comprehensive term “block triangulation” is usually referred to as “aerial

triangulation” or “aerotriangulation” when processing frame camera, digital camera,

videography, and nonmetric camera imagery, while it is referred to simply as
“triangulation” when processing imagery collected with a pushbroom sensor (Leica
Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division 2002b:40; Lillesand et al. 2004:166).
6 Focal plane is the contact positive print (or transparency), not the negative print.

(Jensen 2000:142)
7 Optical axis is the straight line that is perpendicular to the focal plane of aerial

film camera and extends through the center of curvature of the lens to the surface of
the earth to be shot (Lillesand et al. 2004:102).
8 When multiple images are to be processed, a minimum of three GCPs are

required on each image.

9 After my field reconnaissance, I found out that there is an additional concrete

datum around the east corner of the same highest rung of the temple. Since these two
datum points are apparently separate from each other, it can be hardly said that they
are the same point and the gap between them should be taken as margin of error. The
gap is over 40 m in horizontal and nearly 16 m in vertical directions. I suspect that
there were substantial measurement errors on the occasion of the location survey.
10 In a MultiPoint feature layer, multiple points share the same set of attributes,

while a Point feature composes 1-to-1 relationships between features and attributes.
11 GPS measurements are potentially subject to numerous sources of error. They

include clock bias, uncertainties in the satellite orbits (“satellite ephemeris errors”),
atmospheric conditions, influences of electrical noise, multipath reflection of
transmitted signal, and so forth (Lillesand et al. 2004:34).
12 Abend is a coined term in computer science that derived from “abnormal end.”
13 The GCP shapefile is supposed to be compared with topography map layer.

However, since the map does not show the details of archaeological structures,
orthophotos were used instead.
 139

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSIONS

Paralleling the ongoing transformation of archaeological database from analog to

digital, archaeological mapping is in a state of transition. We need to strike a balance

between traditional location survey techniques and more recent state-of-the-art

technologies (e.g., auto tracking pulse non-prism Total Station, RTK Differential GPS,

and high-resolution multispectral remote sensing imagery). Mapping techniques and

resultant map data that differ in level of precision and accuracy complicate data

integration, resulting in substantial spatial discrepancies between different data layers

as with the case of my site mapping. Unless you are blessed with ample funds and time,

you will face the problem of bridging two different technologies and associated issues.

Although some geographers tend to overdramatize the potentials of GIS, contemplation

on the nature of archaeological research and associated limitations exposes the

complexity of archaeological applications of GIS and will bring archaeologists back to

stark reality. Archaeologists usually have to select the most cost-efficient techniques and

data sources for their mapping depending on their research objectives and available

resources.
 140

6.1. Two Broad Categories of Mapping Techniques

What became very clear from my site mapping of Pachacamac was that the use of

remote sensing imagery readily available to the general public does not adequately fulfill

archaeologists’ needs for intra-site and intra-structure mapping and related data

collections. In order to minimize the spatial discrepancies between data layers and trace

the outlines of structures and features very precisely and accurately, ground-truth

checking with GPS was essential. To say nothing of satellite imagery, aerial photography

of relatively low spatial resolution and attendant photogrammetry techniques allow

archaeologists to cover a large area but do not offer very high precision.

Currently available techniques of GIS-based site mapping can be broadly divided

into two types: (1) small-scale mapping methods relying primarily on remote sensing data

and techniques, and (2) large-scale mapping methods based on location surveys in the

field.1 Both require their own hard- and software, and the capability of the equipments

and/or the reliability of data sources one selects will directly reflect the quality of final

products. The selection of the most appropriate method should depend largely upon

required precision and available resources.

If one needs to cover a large area even at the expense of precision, the former

approach would be recommended. Its relatively light workload does not cost too much to

execute. The methods that we employed for our site mapping were relatively handy and

thus may be more appropriate for preliminary survey or reconnaissance prior to the

fieldwork. In our case, since we aimed to digitize on the orthophotos many of the exposed
 141

archaeological structures and to improve the final product up to the level of professional

maps, I had to spend a vast amount of time for more precise digitizing. For preliminary

survey, however, digitizing process is of course unnecessary. All you have to do is perform

geometric corrections of the imagery with reference to known GCPs.2 This task would take

only a few days at most.

For the latter approach, on the other hand, there is no choice but to slowly build up

the map by taking measurements in the field. Although the use of high-end Total Station

will shorten the required amount of time, the creation of a high-resolution map for any

large and/or complex sites cannot be achieved overnight. You should choose this

approach only in cases where you need a very precise map and are prepared to conduct

location surveys with perseverance. In Pachacamac, there is another on-going

archaeological project, Ychsma Project3, directed by Peter Eeckhout (Université Libre de

Bruxelles). This project is composed of thematic subprojects, including digital site

mapping. Representing a notable contrast to our small-scale mapping conducted in the

same site, their large-scale mapping is based on meticulous location surveys by the use of

a Laser Total Station (Ychsma Project 2005a). As of December 2004, it has allowed for

three-dimensional representations of the several monumental architectures and the

topographies of their vicinities4 (Ychsma Project 2005b, 2005c). Their heavy workload

would be fathomable from the fact that their mapping project inaugurated in 2002 is not

expected to be completed until 2007 (Ychsma Project 2005a).

 142

6.2. Concomitant Use of Old and New Data Sources

Usually due to limited resources, it is not the case for most archaeologists to prepare

their site maps by employing only the large-scale mapping methods. The most likely

option for them would be to rely on small-scale mapping methods or a combination of the

two. For example, a preliminary map may be made relatively rapidly using the small-scale

approach for survey and test-excavation phases. Meanwhile, a more time consuming

large-scale mapping could begin. In either case, it is essential to know well various issues

pertaining to data acquisition and integration.

Over the last few years, GIS users have obtained a growing number of external data

sources inherently compatible with GIS; however, many old and new data available in

their hands have a lot of limitations in regard to precision, accuracy, and information

density. Traditional hardcopy topography maps, for example, are likely to be deficient in

information sought by archaeologists because they were not created for archaeological

use in the first place. Rather, surveyors consciously or unconsciously leave out

archaeological information, which is of no interest for them, from their maps. In the site

area of our topography maps, contour lines are segmented and elevation points are scarce.

This is why I could not extract enough reliable elevation information from the maps.

Without GCP measurement by means of GPS, we would have had to accept the results of

low-quality orthorectification based solely on this poor elevation information available

prior to the fieldwork.

On the other hand, more recent, remotely sensed data in digital format such as
 143

SRTM-arc3 DEM and Landsat-7 ETM+ imagery are now accessible for free and enable us

to deal with a much larger area in GIS than conventional data resources. Nevertheless,

most of these free data are hardly at satisfactory level in terms of spatial resolution for

intra-site and/or intra-structure mapping and analysis. The former is of 90 m-resolution,

and the latter is of 14 m-resolution. As of now, finer DEM needs to be created by location

survey, and when it comes to satellite imagery, very expensive IKONOS imagery of 1

m-resolution (panchromatic) would be most favorable. Either way, scenario is premised

on sufficient funds and thus may not be always realistic. It will surely take a while for

most of us to get easy access to higher-resolution DEM and satellite imagery.

Furthermore, some of the new data may suffer from other problems at the time of data

conversion and integration into GIS overlay. As I discussed in the previous chapter, our

DGPS measurements underwent a substantial degree of vertical displacement from other

data layers probably due to the lack of locally fitting geoid model.

Thus, as far as we have to use problematic data sources, both old and new, it would

be virtually impossible for us to conduct site mapping and related data collections that

are precise and accurate enough to undertake truly scalable analyses ranging from

intra-structure (or intra-feature) to macro-regional levels. This implies that a full-scale

application of GIS in archaeology is as yet not practical or feasible. Furthermore, even

though one can obtain very precise and accurate data by means of the state-of-the-art

equipment and techniques, they will not fit well into the conventional site data collected

by old, planimetrically less accurate methods. Since we inevitably face and have to accept
 144

substantial margins of error that stem out of variability in the selection of points to be

measured and other practical details, it may not be worth pursuing the highest precision

and accuracy at the expense of limited resources. Not only the selection of the most

appropriate mapping techniques, but also the required level of precision and accuracy

needs to be carefully considered according to our research interest, field conditions

resulting from varied natural and cultural formation processes, expertise of field crew,

and available data.

Given that all issues in relation to data acquisition, conversion, integration, are still

in the experimental stage, it is the time to thoroughly examine from various viewpoints

the potentials of each technique in hands such as supervised and unsupervised

classifications of ground features, micro-digital terrain modeling, 3D-architectural

modeling, oblique aerial photography, and high-resolution satellite imagery. Although it

will surely take a substantial amount of time, funds, and labor of experts from different

fields to fully assess those techniques, once it is done, we can pick up techniques most

appropriate for our research objectives thereafter, based on the understandings of both

their merits and demerits. Under no circumstances should we adopt them without

deliberate consideration. Inefficient applications will not only waste precious resources,

but also unnecessarily detach us away from our own duties such as explanatory

explorations of material remains and, if temporarily, lead us to become absorbed merely

in technology. We should keep in mind that GIS and other related techniques are nothing

but research tools.

 145

6.3. Tight Budget and “GIS-Phobia”

Tight budget may not allow most archaeological projects to consider adopting

certain new techniques. In the United States, archaeologists tend to be compelled to

individually and annually or biannually seek their research funds, whereas their

colleagues in Europe and other regions of the world have relatively easier access to

multi-year funding. This is borne out by the fact that many of the multidisciplinary

research projects that implement digital site mapping and related technical examinations

are based in European institutions with greater long-term stability and personnel

support (cf. Bard et al. 2003; Campana and Francovich 2003; Cavalli et al. 2003;

Johnson 2005; Lambers 2004). Given the above difference, important future

developments in the archaeological application of GIS are more likely to come out of major

European projects.

Limited resources not only preclude technical examination, but also affect the

feasibility of site mapping itself. Although my mapping task in Pachacamac was blessed

with excellent equipment and software both in the lab and field, many archaeologists

usually have to reconcile themselves to use, at best, moderate-performance equipment

and inexpensive software for their works. Thus, for those who are constantly plagued by

financial constraints, the idea of “tailor-made Archaeological Information Systems,”

which has been advocated by a group of forward-thinking archaeologists (Aldenderfer

2001; Orton 2005), would be nothing more than theoretical ideals. More importantly,

impossible to overlook is the fact that such financial distress leads many archaeologists
 146

to suffer from “GIS-phobia” – a persistent and irrational fear of the new technology that

compels them to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not harmful. In

order for GIS and related techniques to achieve further developments with greater

assistance from archaeologists, it is critical to create and improve an environment where

everyone can have easier and equal access to GIS and data sources.

In this regard, the development of free software such as GRASS and KASHMIR 3D

are quite encouraging (GRASS Development Team 2005; Sugimoto 2002). With its

ultimate goals of storing every piece of existing spatial information within a single

knowledge system and making it available free to the general public, GLOBALBASE also

sets out architecture of great promise (Mori 2005, n.d.). This system enables us to share

map information linked to each other through the WWW and to go freely back and forth

between them, irrespective of the differences in coordinate system and whereabouts of

map information. It no longer requires any resources except for a computer connected to

the internet. The only fear is that the system relies exclusively on the spirit of

international volunteerism as with the case of WWW and open-source software. Although

the basic philosophy of the system is excellent, its feasibility and practicality are highly

questionable. As of May 2005, there seems to be no map data of Andean regions usable

for archaeological purposes.

6.4. Limited Availability of Appropriate Training

In addition to the issues about data quality and tight budget, there is one more issue
 147

to be considered in archaeological applications of GIS: the scarcity of intensive training

program in GIS and related techniques specifically designed for archaeologists. There

seem to have been a growing number of Anthropology departments that accept those

techniques as one of the required research tools and encourage their students to train

themselves. However, the introductory courses taught in many departments do not

necessarily cover the theories and methods required for archaeological site mapping and

subsequent data manipulation and analysis. The procedures that I used in my site

mapping (see Appendix B) actually went far beyond the scope of introductory courses.

Softcopy phogrammetry techniques in particular are not involved even in the advanced

courses on remote sensing and image processing and thus need to be studied on your

own.

Very few universities in the United States, Britain, and Australia provide

comprehensive training in GIS and remote sensing techniques specifically designed for

archaeologists. Notable exceptions include the University of Arkansas, the University of

California at Santa Barbara, Boston University, Rutgers University, the University of York,

University College at London, and the University of Sydney (Aldenderfer 2001). It is

obvious that there will be a steady demand among archaeologists for intensive GIS

training over the next decade. Introducing a regular program of GIS from Geography and

tailoring it to the specific needs of archaeologists and anthropologists in general is

urgently needed.
 148

6.5. Bridging the Contrasting Approaches

When the issues raised above are actively debated and hopefully resolved, we should

be able to focus our attention to the theoretical aspects of GIS applications in archaeology.

One of the apparent theoretical issues is the role that GIS may play in reconciling the

widening gap between the processual and postprocessual approaches and interest in

spatial phenomena. As noted in Chapter 3, early GIS applications in archaeology (e.g.,

Allen et al. 1990 and Gaffney and Stančič 1991) were limited largely to “regional

landscape-based studies” (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:235), although there has been an

increasing recognition in recent years of the need for macro-regional modeling of human

settlements. In contrast to this expansion of the geographical coverage of processual

studies, many archaeologists in the postprocessual camp have insisted on fine-grained

contextual analysis of both material and symbolic dimensions of human existence, which

tend to force them to focus on small social arenas such as houses and communities.

In order to fill in the gap between the two approaches, first of all, we should build a

common framework for the accumulation and management of archaeological data that

are different in type so that both sides can share the same data. The data to be stored in

this framework are required to retain the same level of fine quality across the whole area

from domestic to macro-regional levels so as to be able to be applied to the fine-grained

contextual analysis at any given locus. The full scalability of GIS is critical to

implementing this idea. However, the problems of data scarcity and tight budgets, which
 149

I repeatedly noted above, will come into play here again. The quality and density of

information across different scales would be a huge challenge that can be dealt only

through a careful long-term plan and many years of multi-disciplinary investigation and

collaboration.

Another way in which the gap between the two approaches may be bridged is to find

some key concepts that both sides share. “Distance” may be one of them. Distance is not

a non-problematic universal measurement of the physical hiatus between any two points

in cultural perception and conception. It varies depending on, for instance, the age, sex,

and physical conditions of the person who travels and perceives it. Commonly, adults

walk longer and faster than children, and a caravan of men and animals travels faster

across a wider range of area when they do so without a heavy burden. Furthermore, the

perceived distance may not necessarily be commensurate with the amount of time that

they actually spend. It may also vary depending on certain factors such as the type of

activity (e.g., trade, pilgrimage, expedition, messaging, farming, fishing, hunting, and so

on).

This concept of perceived distance would not only re-directs the interests of

processualists to internal and non-material factors such as perception, experience, and

movement to pursue the space that had been individually constructed through social

actions, on one hand, but also helps postprocessualists to quantify the perceived

landscape, on the other. It will allow for a refinement of the conventional ideal models

such as central place theory and Thiessen polygons. By sorting the perceived distance
 150

into different categories, you can generate a series of cost surfaces different in range and

apply them to create the sub-models that are more faithful to the past landscape.

Thus, critical to better integration of GIS in archaeology, I see the need for both

processual and postprocessual camps to seek shared concepts and areas of shared

concerns and actively adopt the strengths of each. These two schools are historically

linked to each other and should not only be viewed but act in a complementary manner.
 151

Notes

1 It should be recalled that a small-scale map covers a large area, while a large-scale

map covers a small area.

2 Known GCPs are frequently unavailable prior to the research. They may be

collected from topography maps as with the case of my mapping, although the method
relies heavily on the experiences of surveyor and thus is very error-prone.
3 For more information about Ychsma Project, see their website at

http://www.ulb.ac.be/philo/ychsma/.
4 They include Pyramid Complexes 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, the Temple of the

Monkey, the Central Plaza, and the Pilgrims’ Plaza (Ychsma Project 2005b).
 152

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

7.1. Broader Significance to Andean Archaeology

In conclusion, I discuss contributions of our site mapping of Pachacamac to Andean

archaeology. First of all, our map represents the first major revision of the site map since

Uhle (1903) published his over a century ago. It also is the first digital map, which

integrates different data layers of properly georeferenced topographic and archaeological

information: (1) contour lines, (2) elevation points, (2) interpolated DEM and DTM, (3)

orthophotos, (4) digitized archaeological structures, (5) intensively looted areas, (6) areas

where past excavations have been conducted. In order to contextualize the site in a

broader perspective, I also obtained and integrated into the overlay a regional mosaic of

SRTM-arc3 DEMs and georeferenced multispectral Landsat-7 ETM+ scenes, both of

which cover the central Andean regions of Peru (See Figure 5-15). As a result, I am

confident that I could achieve the short-term aim of our digital site mapping which was to

create a better map than Uhle’s in terms of accuracy and information density.

Furthermore, by completing this map within the confines of our limited resources by

maximizing the potentials of GIS and related techniques, I feel that I also accomplished

another objective; that is, to demonstrate the extent to which we can rely on GIS and
 153

related technologies to create high-quality archaeological map given resource limitations.

The last few years have seen a rapid increase in archaeological applications of GIS

and related techniques among Andean archaeologists (Billman et al. 2005; Craig 2000;

Craig and Aldenderfer 2003; Lambers 2004; Ruiz et al. 2005; Williams 2002, 2003;

Williams et al. 2003). However, most of their site maps seem not to have been designed

with long-term perspective and have not gone beyond a stand-alone data source for a

single purpose. In this regard, our long-term objective to construct a comprehensive site

database is very important. This aim will also be gradually achieved by integrating the

results from on-going excavations and paleoenvironmental reconstruction analyses.

Since data collection of paleoenvironmental variables is readily anticipated to increase

with close ties to the GIS-based archaeology, it would be truly valuable for us to deliberate

in advance as to how we should deal with the resulting datasets and as to what we can do

with them. It is particularly important among others to examine how to plot those

paleoenvironmental properties onto the three- and four-dimensional mapping space.

Concurrently, this type of research will require unstinted on-site cooperation of

specialists in physical and biological sciences. It will also be critical to solicit their input

as to how best represent their perspectives, interests and findings in the GIS database.

Secondly, our site map that includes both architectural and topographic features of

the entire site of Pachacamac (including the sacred Urpay Wachak Lagoon) except for the

northernmost margin (e.g., Sector V) will allow us to gain a holistic vision of the site. As I

noted in Chapter 4, many preceding studies in Pachacamac have tended to focus their
 154

primary attentions on the larger monumental architecture such as the temples in the

sacred precinct and the walled multilevel platforms built during the Ychsma period.

Finally, map making in general not only helps us enhance our spatial reasoning

capacity but also can be considered as one of the valuable means by which we can record

the current state of the site and assess impacts of both cultural and natural formation

processes affecting the site. Many archaeological sites are being destroyed due to both

human and natural activities. Actually, as of the summer of 2004, I recognized some

changes in the state of preservation between our 48-year-old aerial photographs and the

current state of the site. For instance, the east half of the pukio that is located

immediately north of the Pyramid with Ramp 1 has been buried, and the modern

settlements of A. H. Julio C. Tello have been encroaching from the east on one third of the

Sector III. Unfortunately, the deliberation on nomination of Pachacamac as a World

Heritage site was postponed in 1999 for the reason that a new management plan needs to

be prepared and implemented (World Heritage Committee, UNESCO 1999:49). To this day,

no long-term plans exist for the preservation and management of the site. Thus, it is

incumbent upon us to document to the best of our ability the site as it exists today and its

transformation in recent decades. Data generation and storage in digital format,

furthermore, enable us to file those data with no degradation of original quality. It is

hoped that this thesis and accompanying digital maps of the site of Pachacamac serve not

only as a useful case study of GIS application in archaeology, but also as an integrated

database for future investigations at Pachacamac.

 155

7.2. In the Near Future

In a new archaeology textbook that has just been published by Brian M. Fagan, “A

brief history of archaeology: Classical times to the twenty-first century”, GIS together with

remote sensing techniques are introduced as one of the most promising methods for

archaeological research in the next decades (Fagan 2005:239). A few significant

technological developments that have recently been taking place in both academic and

commercial domains of Geographic Information Science will allow for further

advancements in archaeological applications of GIS in the near future. The onset of two

new approaches, object-oriented GIS (OO-GIS) and multi-dimensional GIS (3D GIS), is

critically important (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:238-243). The combination of these new

approaches will go beyond the potentials of the traditionally known two-dimensional

systems based on vector/raster data models and may even remove the necessity to tailor

a “plain vanilla” GIS package for archaeological use.

OO-GIS seek to model the world as a series of discrete objects and categorize them

into classes in which they share common features. Each class will have a nested

hierarchical structure with “superclass” at the top, “subclass(es)” in the middle,

“instance(s)” at the bottom, and the lower classes and instances inherit all of the traits of

parent classes above them. Compared to the overly simplified abstractions by means of

conventional data models, the nested hierarchical structure of class in OO-GIS seems to

be much closer to the manner in which we routinely describe and understand the real

world. 3D GIS, on the other hand, provide a new method to plot two points with exactly
 156

the same X and Y coordinates using “voxel”, which is a rectangular cube bounded by eight

grid nodes and is best thought of as the three-dimensional equivalent of a

two-dimensional pixel (Harris and Lock 1996:309; Raper 1989; Worboys 1995:317).

In order to raise the level of our understandings of GIS and take full advantage of the

achievements of leading-edge initiatives noted above, more archaeologists should

certainly be encouraged to train themselves in appropriate technology specially prepared

in line with archaeological theories and methods and to explore the potentials of those

new technological advancements. In this context, I believe, the discussions in this thesis

and accompanying procedures manual (Appendix B) will help to lower the threshold of

archaeological applications of GIS and work as an introductory lesson for potential users.

Moreover, it would be ideal if we could more actively participate in the world-wide fora of

GIS and expound our views from the standpoint of archaeology. Especially in terms of

temporality (e.g., temporal GIS), as Wheatley and Gillings (2002:242) point out, there will

be some issues through which archaeologists can make a significant contribution to the

discipline of GIS as a whole.

Though the persistent problem of tight budget seems not to be resolved very easily for

the time being, through the improvements of technologies and infrastructures, the

datasets available at hand will become more accurate and the cost will inversely decrease.

Our financial constraints and attendant limitations of material resources will gradually

be mitigated. It is simply a matter of time. In incremental steps, the accumulated

knowledge and experience in the actual use of GIS will lead to vigorous discussions
 157

among archaeologists on important issues such as a pursuit for archaeological standard

to record, store, and manipulate archaeological data. These productive discussions will,

in turn, set the stage for the developments of analytical methods which are the true worth

of GIS application and our original purpose. Finally, I would like to emphasize again that

my digital site mapping of Pachacamac is also just a tip of the iceberg, that is, our

long-term aim to establish a digital/analog archive of interdisciplinary site database for

subsequent explanatory endeavors to reconstruct past human life.

 158

REFERENCES

Aldenderfer, Mark

1996 Introduction. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems,

edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp.3-18. Oxford

University Press, New York.

2001 Interview with Prof. Mark Aldenderfer: “Archaeologists have begun to adapt both

GIS and RS technologies to the investigation of individual archaeological sites, and it

is here that both show great promise for the future.” Retrieved February 4th, 2005

from http://www.gisdevelopment.net/interview/previous/ev028.htm

Aldenderfer, Mark and Herbert D. G. Maschner (eds.)

1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. Oxford University

Press, New York.

Allen, Kathleen M. Sydoriak

1996 Iroquoian Kandscapes: People, Environments, and the GIS Context. In New

Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological

Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp.198-222.

Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at

Carbondale.

Allen, Kathleen M. S., Stanton W. Green, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow (eds.)

1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor & Francis, New York.
 159

Bailey, Trevor C. and Anthony C. Gatrell

1995 Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. Longmans Scientific & Technical, Harlow

Essex.

Balkansky, Andrew K.

In press Surveys and Mesoamerican Archaeology: The Emerging Macroregional

Paradigm. Journal of Archaeological Research, in press.

Bankes, G. H. A.

1972 Settlement Patterns in the Lower Moche Valley, North Peru, with Special

Reference to the Early Horizon and Early Intermediate Periods. In Man, Settlement,

and Urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp.903-908.

Schenkman Publishing Company, Cambridge.

Bard, Kathryn A., Michael C. DiBlasi, Magaly Koch, Livio Crescenzi, A. Catherine

D’Andrea, Rodolfo Fattovich, Andrea Manzo, Cinzia Perlingieri, Maurizio Forte, M. Scott

Harris, Gerald H. Johnson, Stefano Tilia, and Bartolomeo Trabassi

2003 The Joint Archaeological Project at Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum, Ethiopia) of the

Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples (Italy), and Boston University, Boston

(USA): Results, Research Procedures and Preliminary Computer Applications. In

The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies,

edited by M. Forte and P. R. Williams, pp.1-13. BAR International Series 1151,

2003, Oxford.
 160

Barrette, J. C.

1999 Chronologies of Landscape. In The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape,

edited by P. Ucko and R. Layton, pp.21-30. Routledge, London.

Bateson, Gregory

1972 Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine, New York.

1979 Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Bantam, New York.

Billman, Brian R.

1996 The evolution of prehistoric political organizations in the Moche Valley, Peru.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Santa

Barbara.

1999a Settlement Pattern Research in the Americas. In Settlement Pattern Studies in

the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú, edited by Brian R. Billman and Gary M.

Feinman, pp.1-5. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1999b Reconstructing Prehistoric Political Economies and Cycles of Political Power

in the Moche Valley, Peru. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years

since Virú, edited by Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, pp.131-159.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Billman, Brian R. and Gary M. Feinman (eds.)

1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

 161

Billman, Brian R., James Kenworthy, and Jennifer Ringberg

2005 Results of the 2004 Field Season at Cerro Leon, A Possible Early Intermediate

Period Highland Colony in the Moche Valley, Peru. Paper presented at the 33rd

Annual Midwest Conference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeology and

Ethnohistory, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. February 26-27, 2005.

Binford, Lewis R. (ed.)

1977 For Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Binford, Lewis R.

1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.

Boas, Franz

1888 The Central Eskimo. Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology

for the Years 1884-1885. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bogue, D. J.

1949 The Structure of the Metropolitan Community: A Study of Dominance and

Subdominance. Horace M. Rackman School of Graduate Studies, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Campana, Stefano and Riccardo Francovich

2003 Landscape Archaeology in Tuscany: Cultural resource management, remotely

sensed techniques, GIS based data integration and interpretation. In The

Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies, edited by

M. Forte and P. R. Williams, pp.15-27. BAR International Series 1151, 2003,

 162

Oxford.

Castelnau, Francis de

1854 Exédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud, troisieme partie:

Antiquités des Incas et autres peuples anciens. Bertrand, Paris.

Catherwood, Frederick

1844 View of Ancient Monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. Vizetally,

London.

Cattani, Maurizio

2005 Expectations, assessments and capabilities in managing archaeology through

GIS. In Reading Historical Spatial Information from around the World: Studies of

Culture and Civilization Based on Geographic Information Systems Data, The 24th

International Research Symposium, pp.232-240. International Research Center for

Japanese Studies, Japan.

Cavalli, R.M., C. M. Marino, and S. Pignatti

2003 Hyperspectral airborne remote sensing as an aid to a better understandingand

characterization of buried elements in different archaeological sites. In The

Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies, edited by

M. Forte and P. R. Williams, pp.29-32. BAR International Series 1151, 2003,

Oxford.

Childe, Gordon V.

1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

 163

1934 Neolithic Settlement in the West Scotland. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 50,

pp.18-25.

1939 The Dawn of European Civilization, third edition. Kegan Paul, London.

Chorley, Richard J. and Peter Haggett (eds.)

1967 Models in Geography. Methuen & Co, Ltd., London.

Christaller, Walter

1933 Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine ökonomisch-geographische

Untersuchung über die Gesetzmässigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der

Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Fischer, Jena.

Clarke, David. L. (ed.)

1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, London.

Craig, Nathan

2000 Real-Time GIS Construction and Digital Data Recording of the Jiskairumoko

Excavation, Peru. SAA Bulletin 18(1). Retrieved February 7th, 2005 from

http://www.saa.org/publications/saabulletin/18-1/saa18.html

Craig, Nathan and Mark Aldenderfer

2003 Preliminary Stages in the Development of a Real-Time Digital Data Recording

System for Archareological Excavation Using ArcView GIS 3.1. Journal of GIS in

Archaeology 1:11-22. ESRI. Retrieved February 7th, 2005 from

http://www.esri.com/library/journals/archaeology/volume_1/realtime_recording

.pdf
 164

Crawford, O. G. S.

1921 Man and his Past. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Deuel, Leo.

1969 Flights into Yesterday: The story of aerial archaeology. St. Martin’s Press, New

York.

Dillehay, T.

1976 Competition and Cooperation in a Prehispanic Multi-Ethnic System in the Central

Andes. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at

Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Donnan, Christopher B.

1973 Moche Occupation of the Santa Valley, Peru. University of California

Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 8. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Duncan, B.

1959 Population Distribution and Manufacturing Activity: The Non-Metropolitan

United States in 1950. Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science Association

5:95-103.

Earle, T. K.

1972 Lurin Valley, Peru: Early Intermediate Period Settlement Development.

American Antiquity 37:467-477.

Eeckhout, Peter

2003 Ancient Monuments and Patterns of Power at Pachacamac, Central Coast of

 165

Peru. In Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, Band 23,

pp.139-182. Verlag Philipp von Zabern GmbH, Mainz.

Eling, H. H., Jr.

1988 The role of irrigation networks in emerging societal complexity during late

pre-Hispanic times, Jequetepeque Valley, North Coast, Peru. Ph. D. dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin.

ESRI Japan

March 5th, 2002 Orthorectification of Aerial Photography. Retrieved March 24th,

2004 from http://www.esrij.com/support/erdas/faq/camera_model/

cameramodel.html

Fagan, Brian M.

2005 A brief history of archaeology: Classical times to the twenty-first century.

Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Farley, James A. and Anne Gisiger

1996 Managing the Infrastructure: The Use of a Corporate Metadata for Archaeology.

In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern

Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G.

Maschner, pp.275-299. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale.

Forte, Maurizio

2003 Mindscape: Ecological Thinking, Cyber-Anthropology and Virtual

 166

Archaeological Landscapes. In The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes

through Digital Technologies, pp.95-108. BAR International Series 1151, 2003,

Oxford.

Forte, Maurizio and Patrick Ryan Williams (eds.)

2003 The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies.

BAR International Series 1151, 2003, Oxford.

Fox, Cyril

1923 The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

1932 The Personality of Britain. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

Franco Jordan, Regulo G.

1998 La Pirámide con Rampa No. 2 de Pachacamac: Excavaciones y Nuevas

Interpretaciones. Trujillo, Peru.

Gaffney, V. and Z. Stančič

1991 GIS Approaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study of the Island of Hvar.

Filozofska Fakulteta, Ljubljana.

1992 Didorus Siculus and the Island of Hvar, Dalmatia: Testing the Text with GIS. In

Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaelogy 1991, edited by G. R.

Lock and J. Moffet, pp.113-125. BAR International Series S577. Tempus

Reparatum, Oxford.
 167

Gifford, E. and Alfred Kroeber

1937 Culture Element Distributions: EV, Pomo. University of California Publications

in American Archaeology and Ethnology 37, pp.117-254.

Global Land Cover Facility

2004 Earth Science Data Interface. Retrieved March 24th, 2004 from

http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml

Gradmann, R.

1906 Beziehung zwischen Pflanzengeographie und Siedlungsgeschichte.

Geographische Zeitschrift 12:305-325.

GRASS Development Team

June 21st, 2005 Geographic Resources Analysis Support System. Retrieved June

22nd, 2005 from http://grass.itc.it/

Green, Stanton W.

1990 Approaching Archaeological Space: An Introduction to the Volume. In

Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by Kathleen M. S. Allen, Stanton W.

Green, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp.3-8. Taylor & Francis, New York.

Grimes, W. F.

1945 Early Man and Soils of Anglesey. Antiquity, 19, pp.169-174.

Hägerstrand, T.

1952 The Propagation of Innovation Waves. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B,

Human Geography 4:3-9.

 168

Haggett, Peter

1966 Locational Analysis inhuman Geography. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Harris, T. M. and G. R. Lock

1996 Multi-dimensional GIS exploratory approaches to spatial and temporal

relationships within archaeological stratigraphy. In Interpreting the past, edited by

H. Kamermans and K. Fennema, pp.307-316. Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia 28,

Leiden University Press.

Hasenstab, Robert J.

1996 Settlement As Adaptation: Variability in Iroquois Village Site Selection As

Inferred Through GIS. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information

Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by

Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp.223-241. Center for Archaeological Investigations,

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Hellmich, M.

1923 Die Besiedlung Schlesiens in vor - und frűhgeschichtlicher Zeit. Preuss und

Jűnger, Breslau.

Hodder, Ian

1977 Some New Directions in the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data at the

Regional Scale (Macro). In Spatial Archaeology, edited by David. L. Clarke,

pp.223-351. Academic Press, London.

1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58:25-32.

 169

Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodge, Frederick W. (ed.)

1907-1910 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, 2 pts. Bureau of

American Ethnology, Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.

Hogg, A. H.

1943 Native Settlements of Northumberland. Antiquity, 17, pp.136-147.

Jensen, John R

2000 Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective. Prentice

Hall, New Jersey.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

January 24th, 2000 UTM Zones. Retrieved February 9th, 2004 from

http://shookweb.jpl.nasa.gov/validation/UTM/default.htm

Johnson, Ian

2005 Studying Angkor: Integration of GIS, GPS, Remote Sensing and Contemporary

Observation. In Reading Historical Spatial Information from around the World:

Studies of Culture and Civilization Based on Geographic Information Systems Data,

The 24th International Research Symposium, pp.188-205. International Research

Center for Japanese Studies, Japan.

Kluckhohn, Clyde

1939 The Place of Theory in Anthropological Studies. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6, no.
 170

3, pp.328-344.

1940 The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their

Neighbors, edited by C. L. Hay and others, pp.41-51. Appleton-Century, New York.

Kosok, Paul

1965 Life, Land and Water in Ancient Peru. Long Island University Press, New York.

Kroeber, Alfred

1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California

Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 38.

Kvamme, Kenneth L.

1993 Spatial Analysis and GIS: An Integrated Approach. In Computing the Past:

Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology – CAA92, edited by

Jens Andresen, Torsten Madsen, and Irwin Scollar, pp.91-103. Aarhus University

Press, Aarhus.

1999 Magnetic Survey at Navan Fort, Northern Ireland. Retrieved September 23rd,

2004 from http://www.cast.uark.edu/~kkvamme/navan/navan.htm

Lambers, Karsten

2004 The Geoglyphs of Palpa (Peru): Documentation, Analysis, and Interpretation.

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zurich.

Launhardt, W.

1882 Die Bestimmung des zweckmäßigsten Standortes einer gewerblichen Anlage.

Zeitschrift des Vereins deutscher Ingenieure 26:107-116.

 171

Leica Geosystems GIS & Mapping Division

2002a ERDAS Field Guide, Sixth Edition. ERDAS LLC, Atlanta, Georgia.

2002b IMAGINE OrthoBASE User's Guide: Including IMAGINE OrthoBASE Pro. ERDAS

LLC, Atlanta, Georgia.

Lillesand, Thomas M., Ralph W. Kiefer, and Jonathan W. Chipman

2004 Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, fifth edition. John Wiiley & Sons,

New York.

Lo, C. P. and Albert K. W. Yeung

2002 Concepts and Techniques of Geographic Information Systems. Prentice Hall,

New York.

Lock, G. R. and Z. Stančič [eds.]

1995 Archaeology and Geographic Information Systems: A European Perspective.

Taylor & Francis, London.

Longley, Paul A., Michael F. Goodchild, David J. Maguire, and David W. Rhind

2001 Geographic Information Systems and Science. John Willey & Sons, Ltd,

Chichester.

Mackinder, H. J.

1904 The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal 23(4):421-437.

1909 Geographical Conditions Affecting the British Empire: I. The British Islands.

The Geographical Journal 33(4):462-476.

 172

Madry, Scott L. H. and Lynn Rakos

1996 Line-of-Sight and Cost-Surface Techniques for Regional Research in the Arroux

River Valley. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in

Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G.

Maschner, pp.104-126. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale.

Marble, Duane F.

1990 The Potential Methodological Impact of Geographic Information Systems on the

Social Sciences. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by Kathleen M.

S. Allen, Stanton W. Green, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp.9-21. Taylor & Francis, New

York.

Marble, Duane F., Hugh Calkins, and Donna Peuquet (eds.)

1984 Basic readings in Geographic Information Systems. SPAD Systems,

Williamsville, NY.

Markham, Sir Clements R.

1856 Cuzco: A Journey to the Ancient Capital of Peru. Chapman and Hall, London.

1871 On the Geographical Positions of the Tribes Which Formed the Empire of the

Yucas. Journal of the Royal Geographical Sociey 41:281-338.

1892 A History of Peru. Charles H. Siegel, Chicago.

1910 The Incas of Peru. E. P. Dutton, New York.

 173

Martin, Paul, Carl Lloyd, and Alexander Spoehr

1938 Archaeological Works in the Ackman-Lowry Area, Southwestern Colorado,

1937. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series 23(2):217-304.

Chicago.

Martin, Paul and John Rinaldo

1939 Modified Basket Maker Sites, Excavations at a Mogollon Village, Western New

Mexico, 1939. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series

23(3):305-499. Chicago.

Maschner, Herbert D. G. (ed.)

1996 New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern

Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23. Center for Archaeological

Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Maschner, Herbert D. G.

1996 Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology. In New Methods, Old

Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research,

Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp.1-21. Center for

Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms

1996 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. Mayfield Publishing Company,

Mountain View, CA.

 174

Michczyński, Adam, Peter Eeckhout, and Anna Pazdur

2003 14 C Absolute Chronology of Pyramid III and the Dynastic Model at Pachacamac,

Peru. Radiocarbon, Vol. 45, Nr. 1, pp.59-73.

Middendorf, E. W.

1893-1895 Peru, 3 vols. Robert Oppenheim, Berlin.

Mori, Hirohisa

n.d. Globalbase Project. Retrieved April 8th, 2005 from

http://globalbase.sourceforge.jp/home/en/

2005 Development of the distributed GIS architecture for archaeology. In Reading

Historical Spatial Information from around the World: Studies of Culture and

Civilization Based on Geographic Information Systems Data, The 24th International

Research Symposium, pp.106-115. International Research Center for Japanese

Studies, Japan.

Mortillet, Gabriel de

1897 Formation de la nation française. Alcan, Paris.

Moseley, Michael E.

1975 The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Cummings Publishing

Company, Menlo Park, California.

Nilsson, Sven

1868 The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, third edition, translated by J.

Lubbock. Longsman, Green, London.

 175

Nolan, J. L.

1980 Prehispanic Irrigation and Polity in the Lambayeque Sphere, Peru. Ph.D.

dissertation, Columbia University.

Ormsby, Tom, Eileen Napoleon, Robert Burke, Carolyn Groessl, and Laura Feaster

2001 Getting to Know ArcGIS Desktop: Basics of ArcView, ArcEditor, and ArcInfo.

ESRI Press, New York.

Orton, Clive

2005 Adding Values to GIS – Some Spatial-analytical Techniques and Their

Applications. In Reading Historical Spatial Information from around the World:

Studies of Culture and Civilization Based on Geographic Information Systems Data,

The 24th International Research Symposium, pp.148-160. International Research

Center for Japanese Studies, Japan.

Palerm, Angel and Eric R. Wolf

1957 Ecological Potential and Cultural Development in Mesoamerica. In Studies in

human Ecology, Pan American Union Socail Sciences Monograph, no. 3, pp.28-42.

Washington, D.C.

Paredes B., Ponciano

1991 Pachacamac: Murallas y Caminos Epimurales. Boletín de Lima, No. 74: 85-95.

Paredes B., Ponciano and Régulo G. Franco J.

1985 Excavaciones en La Huaca Pintada o El Templo de Pachacamac. Boletín de

Lima 7(41):78-84.
 176

Patterson, Thomas C.

1966 Pattern and Process in the Early Intermediate Period Pottery of the Central Coast

of Peru. University of California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 3. University of

California Press, Berkeley.

1971 Central Peru: Its Population and Economy. Archaeology 24:316-321.

Petrie, Sir W. M. F.

1899 Sequences in Prehistoric Remains. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 29:295-301.

1939 The Making of Egypt. Sheldon, London.

Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin

1951 Archaeological Survey in the lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-47. Papers

of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 25. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pitt-Rivers, A. H. L. F.

1887 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vol. 1. Privately printed.

1888 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vol. 2. Privately printed.

1892 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vol. 3. Privately printed.

1898 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vol. 4. Privately printed.

Proulx, Donald A.

1985 An Analysis of the Early Cultural Sequence of the Nepeña Valley, Peru. Research

Report, No. 25. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.
 177

Raper, J. (ed.)

1989 Three dimensional applications in geographical information systems. Taylor &

Francis, London.

Ravines, Rogger

n.d. Pachacamac: Santuario Universal. Editorial Los Pinos E.I.R.L., Lima, Peru.

Ray, Christopher

1991 Building a Scale Reconstruction Model of the Sun Temple at Pachacamac. In

Pachacamac: A reprint of the 1903 edition by Max Uhle. University Museum Press,

University of Pennsylvania.

Reiss, Wilhelm and Alphons Stüdel

1880-1887 The Necropolis of Ancón in Peru, 3 vols. Berlin.

Rostworowski, Maria

1992 Pachacamac y el Señor del los Milagros: Una Trayectoria Milenaria. Instituto de

Estudios Peruanos, Lima.

Rowe, John H.

1954 Max Uhle, 1856-1944, a Memoir of the Father of Peruvian Archaeology.

University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 46(1).

Berkeley.

Ruggles, Clive L. N. and David J. Medyckyj-Scott

1996 Site Location, Landscape Visibility, and Symbolic Astronomy: A Scottish Case

Study. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern

 178

Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G.

Maschner, pp.127-146. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale.

Ruiz, Alvaro, Gerbert Ascensios, Keith Carlson, Nathan Craig, Winifred Creamer, and

Jonathan Haas

2005 Mapping on Different Scales and GIS in the Norte Chico: Enhancements to

traditional archaeological Excavation. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Midwest

Conference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory, University

of Missouri, Columbia, MO. February 26-27, 2005.

SAN (Servicio Aerofotográfico Nacional)

n.d. Nuestro Equipamiento. Retrieved March 24th, 2004 from

http://www.fap.mil.pe/Grupos%20Aereos/diraf/docs/equipamiento.htm

Schäffle, G. F.

1878 Bau und Leben des sozialen Korpers 3. Tübingen.

Schaedel, Richard P.

1951 The Lost Cities of Peru. The Scientific American, Aug. 1951, pp.18-23.

Schliz, A.

1906 Der schnurkeramische Kulturkreis und seine Stellung zu der anderen

neolithischen Kulturformen in Sudwestdeutchland. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie

38:312-345.
 179

Schreiber, Katharina J.

1999 Regional Approaches to the Study of Prehistoric Empires: Examples from

Ayacucho and Nasca, Peru. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty

Years since Virú, edited by Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, pp.160-171.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Shimada, Izumi

1991 Pachacamac Archaeology: Retrospect and Prospect. In Pachacamac: A reprint of

the 1903 edition by Max Uhle. University Museum Press, University of

Pennsylvania.

2004 Pachacamac (Ychsma). In Enciclopedia Archeologica, edited by Massimo Bray.

Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Roma.

Shimada, Izumi, Rafael Segura, John Jones, María Rostworowski, Hirokatsu Watanabe

2003 The Pachacamac Archaeological Project: Results of the First Season and Their

Implications. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Northeast Conference on Andean

Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. November 1-2,

2003.

Silverman, Helaine

2002 Ancient Nasca Settlement and Society. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Squier, E. George

1877 Peru: Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas. Macmillan

and Co., London.

 180

Stanish, Charles

1999 Settlement Pattern Shifts and Political Ranking in the Lake Titicaca Basin,

Peru. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú, edited by

Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, pp.116-128. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

2003 Ancient Titicaca : The Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and

Northern Bolivia. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Stephens, John L.

1837 Incidents of Travel in Egypt, Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land, 2 vols. Harper,

New York.

1838 Incidents of Travel in Greece, Turkey, Russia and Poland, 2 vols. Harper, New

York.

1841 Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, 2 vols. Harper,

New York.

1843 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, 2 vols. Harper, New York.

Steward, Julian H. (ed.)

1946-1950 The Handbook of South American Indians, 6 vols. Bureau of American

Ethnology, Bulletin 143. Washington, D.C.

Steward, Julian H.

1947 American Culture History in the Light of South America. Southwestern Journal

of Anthropology 3:85-107.
 181

1949 Cultural Causality and Law: A Trial Formulation of the Development of Early

Civilizations. American Anthropologist 51:1-27.

1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Steward, Julian H. and Frank M. Setzler

1938 Function and Configuration in Archaeology. American Antiquity 4(1):4-10.

Strong, William Duncan

1936 Anthropological Theory and Archaeological Fact. In Essays in Anthropology,

edited by R. H. Lowie, pp.359-368. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Sugimoto, Tomohiko

February 2nd, 2002 3D Landscapes CG & Maps. Retrieved March 15th, 2005 from

http://www.kashmir3d.com/index-e.html

Thioulouse, Jean, Daniel Chessel, Sylvain Dolédec, and J. M. Olivier

1997 ADE-4: A Multivariate Analysis and Graphical Display Software. Statistics and

Computing 7(1):75-83.

Thomas, Julian

2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited

by Ian Hodder, pp.165-186. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Tilley, Chris

1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, first edition.

Berg, Oxford.
 182

Tomlin, Charles Dana

1990 Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modelling. Prentice Hall,

New Jersey.

Trigger, Bruce G.

1986 Prospects for a World Archaeology. World Archaeology 18(1):1-20.

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tschauner, Hartmut

2001 Socioeconomic and Political Organization in the Late Prehispanic Lambayeque

Sphere, Northern North Coast of Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Tschudi, Johann

1869 Reisen Durch Súd-Amerika, 5 vols. Leipzig.

Uhle, Max

1903 Pachacamac: Report of the William Pepper, M. D., LL. D., Peruvian Expedition of

1896, translated by C. Grosse. Department of Archaeology, The University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Von Thünen, J. H.

1826 Die isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtshaft und Nationalökonomie.

Pergamon Press, New York.

Wahle, E.

1915 Urwald und offense Land in ihrer Bedeutung für die Kulturentwickelung.

Archiv für Anthropologie, N. S. 13:404-413.

 183

Weber, Alfred

1909 Über den Standort der Industrie: Reine Theorie des Standorts. Tübingen.

Westcott, Konnie L. and R. Joe Brandon (eds.)

2000 Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Toolkit.

Taylor & Francis, London.

Wheatley, David

1996 The Use of GIS to Understand Regional Variation in Earlier Neolithic Wessex. In

New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern

Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper No.23, edited by Herbert D. G.

Maschner, pp.75-103. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale.

Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings

2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS.

Taylor & Francis, New York.

Willey, Gordon R.

1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru. Bureau of American

Ethnology, Bulletin 155. Washington, D.C.

1959 Aerial Photographic Maps as Survey Aids in Virú Valley. In The Archaeology

at Work, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.203-207. Harper & Brothers, New York.

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff

1993 A History of American Archaeology, Third Edition. W. H. Freeman and

 184

Company, New York.

Williams, Patrick Ryan

2002 A Re-examination of Disaster Induced Collapse in the Case of the Andean

Highland States: Wari and Tiwanaku. World Archaeology 33(3).

2003 Hydraulic Landscapes and Social Relations in the Middle Horizon Andes. In

The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies,

edited by M. Forte and P. R. Williams, pp.163-172. BAR International Series 1151,

2003, Oxford.

Williams, Patrick Ryan, Deborah Blom, Nicole Couture, Christopher Dayton, John

Janusek, and Benjamin Vining

2003 Visualizing the Urban and Monumental Components of the Tiwanaku State: New

Perspectives from Geophysics in the Andean Altiplano. Paper presented at the 22nd

Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA. November 1-2, 2003.

Wilson, David J.

1983 The Origins and Development of Complex Prehispanic Society in the Lower

Santa Valley, Peru: Implications of Theories of State Origins. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2, pp.209-276.

1988 Prehispanic settlement patterns in the lower Santa Valley, Peru: a regional

perspective on the origins and development of complex North Coast society.

Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

 185

Winsborough, Barbara, John Jones, Lee Newsom, Izumi, Shimada, Rafael Segura, and

María Rostworowski

2005 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction at Pachacamac: Integrating Diatom, Pollen,

Macrobotanical, and Archaeological Data. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual

Midwest Conference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory,

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. February 26-27, 2005.

Woolridge, S. W. and D. L. Linton

1933 The Loam-terrains of Southeast England and their Relation to its Early History.

Antiquity, 7, pp.297-310.

Worboys, M. F.

1995 GIS: a computing perspective. Taylor & Francis, London.

World Heritage Committee, UNESCO

1999 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

23rd session at Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, July 5-10, 1999. Retrieved

November 27, 2004 from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur99.pdf

Ychsma Project

2005a Topographic and Planimetric Survey: Project Description. Retrieved March 12th,

2005 from http://www.ulb.ac.be/philo/ychsma/en/topodescription.html

2005b Current results of Topography, Mapping, and CAD Processing. Retrieved March

12th, 2005 from http://www.ulb.ac.be/philo/ychsma/en/avancement.html

2005c Up-to-date map of Pachacamac, December 2004 (Directors: P. Eeckhout and C.

 186

Farfán; Survey and Mapping: V. Decart) Retrieved March 12th, 2005 from

http://www.ulb.ac.be/philo/ychsma/en/pdf/21.planen2004.pdf
APPENDICES
 187

APPENDIX A: HARDWARES AND SOFTWARES

In order to make it easier for the interested users to replicate or consult my work, I

have kept it in mind that I use major hardware and software that have larger market

share. The specification of each device is listed below.

Table A-1. List of hardware and software utilized.

Image Scanner GRAPHTEC, CS2000

Model Dell, WORKSTATION PWS340
Processor Intel, Pentium 4 2.53GHz (uniprocessor)
RAM 1.024GB
Graphic Card NVIDIA, Quadro4 700 XGL
PC 1
Operation System Microsoft, Windows XP Professional + Service Pack 2
GIS Software ESRI, ArcGIS 8.3 (ArcInfo License)

Image Processing Leica Geosystems, ERDAS Imagine 8.6

Software
Model No brand (assembled; PC/AT compatible)
Processor Intel, Pentium 4 1.8GHz Northwood (uniprocessor)
RAM 1.024GB (512MB DDR SDRAM PC2700 CL3 x 2)
Graphic Card ATI Technologies, RADEON 9200 ATLANTIS
PC 2 Operation System Microsoft, Windows XP Professional + Service Pack 2
GIS Software ESRI, ArcGIS 8.3 (ArcView License) + 3 extensions of
Spatial Analyst, 3D Analyst, Geostatistical Analyst
Image Processing Adobe, Photoshop CS and Illustrator CS
Software
GPS Leica Geosystems, GS20 Professional Data Mapper (Firmware 1.15.29) +
Control Receiver Leica Geosystems, AT501 Antenna + Generic Tripod
GPS Leica Geosystems, GS20 Professional Data Mapper (Firmware 1.15.29) +
Rover Receiver Leica Geosystems, AT501 Antenna + Leica, GLS111 Plumbing Pole
Software for Data Leica Geosystems, GIS DataPRO
Post-processing
Plotter Hewlett Packard, Designjet 755CM and Designjet 5500PS
 188

APPENDIX B: PROCEDURES MANUAL

B.1. How to georeference a scanned image

STEP 1 Start ArcMap. You will be prompted to choose three options with which you

wish to start using ArcMap: (1) “A new empty map,” (2) “A template,” or (3) “An existing

map.” Since you do not have either template or existing map, choose the first.

STEP 2 Open the scanned image in ArcMap by selecting “Add Data” from the “File”

menu and locating the file path. The image will be displayed together with a warning

message (Figure B-1). This message will always come up when you add a new data

layer without any spatial reference information specified. Hit “OK.”

Figure B-1. A warning message.

STEP 3 If you cannot find the “Georeferencing” toolbar either plugged in the

application window or floating on the screen, select “Toolbars > Georeferencing” in

the “View” menu. The toolbar will appear somewhere on the screen (Figure B-2). You

can drag and move it as you want.

Figure B-2. The “Georeferencing” toolbar of ArcMap.

 189

STEP 4 Now you define a series of control points in order to resample the image.

Control points are defined at the points that are easily recognized on the original

image and have the exact coordinates. In my case, I used the points at which the X

and Y grids intersect each other (49 points in total). Click the “Add Control Points”

icon that is located second right in the “Georeferencing” toolbar. The arrow cursor will

be turned into a crosshair.

STEP 5 Click at the point where you want to place a control point. In so doing, you

may want to use the “Zoom In” and/or “Pan” tools so that you can more easily

recognize the exact place where you should define the control point. When you click

at a point, a light green cross will be marked at the spot and a black line will stretch

from the spot (Figure B-3). Then, you right-click and select “Input X and Y” from the

small pop-up list that will appear right next to the crosshair. If you miss the spot and

want to try again, you can undo it by selecting “Cancel Point.”

Figure B-3. Locating the control point. The point will be marked at the spot with a light-green

crosshair.
 190

STEP 6 Correctly type in the X-Y coordinates in the “Enter Coordinates” dialog window

and hit “OK.” Repeat this as many times as the number of control points you have. A

defined control point will be marked as a red crosshair (Figure B-4). Sometimes the

image may disappear from the map display window after defining a control point. On

such an occasion, click the “Full Extent” icon in the “Tools” toolbar. The image will

come up again. If you want to cancel the point after defining it, click the “View Link

Table” icon rightmost in the “Georeferencing” toolbox, select the point that you want

to erase from the list, and press the erase button labeled “X.”

Figure B-4. The 49 defined control points marked by red crosshairs.

STEP 7 The coordinate information can be retrieved by clicking the “View Link Table”

icon in the “Georeferencing” toolbar. All of the defined control points are listed in a

table and can be saved as a text file (Figure B-5; Table B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4). You had

better save the file constantly not to loose the point information by accident.
 191

Figure B-5. The defined control points are listed in a table. The list can be saved as and loaded

from a text file in this window.

STEP 8 Click the “Georeferencing” dropdown arrow and select “Rectify.” In the “Save

as” dialog window that will appear, modify the “Cell size” to enlarge or reduce the

spatial resolution of and assign the name and type of the “Output Raster” image. In

my case, since the four quadrangles had to be resampled in the same resolution and

bonded into one piece of map later, I unified the cell size as 0.32, which was the

coarsest. You should leave the “Resample Type” as it is (“Nearest Neighbor” selected)

unless you have specific preference. For the file type of the output raster image,

choose ESRI GRID. Once you click “OK,” resampling program will be launched.

Resampling may take a while if the original image size is very large. When the

resampling process is completed, click the “File” menu and click “Exit.” Click “No” if

prompted to save your changes.

 192

Table B-1. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 30-K.

X Source Y Source X Map Y Map Residual

6.307099 29.561526 291000.000000 8648000.000000 0.36332
29.857500 5.980104 294000.000000 8645000.000000 0.12054
29.872520 29.556375 294000.000000 8648000.000000 0.93985
6.292318 5.966282 291000.000000 8645000.000000 1.21617
10.230032 25.632553 291500.000000 8647500.000000 0.40041
14.157615 21.698869 292000.000000 8647000.000000 0.19427
18.081249 17.770097 292500.000000 8646500.000000 0.09255
22.008736 13.842631 293000.000000 8646000.000000 0.41824
25.932476 9.912612 293500.000000 8645500.000000 0.37043
25.942550 25.632676 293500.000000 8647500.000000 0.07692
22.013729 21.701316 293000.000000 8647000.000000 0.17398
14.151299 13.838885 292000.000000 8646000.000000 0.08350
10.218862 9.905024 291500.000000 8645500.000000 0.31779
10.230100 29.565098 291500.000000 8648000.000000 0.74921
25.927417 5.982773 293500.000000 8645000.000000 0.59743
25.943710 29.562524 293500.000000 8648000.000000 0.24473
10.220064 5.975161 291500.000000 8645000.000000 0.29852
6.302440 25.628951 291000.000000 8647500.000000 0.03306
29.861245 9.907420 294000.000000 8645500.000000 0.38551
29.872607 25.627670 294000.000000 8647500.000000 0.70745
6.289903 9.898699 291000.000000 8645500.000000 1.00456
14.165186 29.563711 292000.000000 8648000.000000 0.61121
22.003646 5.982497 293000.000000 8645000.000000 0.55531
22.020076 29.562638 293000.000000 8648000.000000 0.33148
14.148801 5.977570 292000.000000 8645000.000000 0.35722
6.298668 21.694973 291000.000000 8647000.000000 0.43892
29.862664 13.840383 294000.000000 8646000.000000 0.13698
29.867459 21.696036 294000.000000 8647000.000000 0.81911
6.292640 13.833749 291000.000000 8646000.000000 0.49240
18.090084 29.562683 292500.000000 8648000.000000 0.16755
18.074865 5.980068 292500.000000 8645000.000000 0.31988
6.295939 17.766294 291000.000000 8646500.000000 0.25251
29.866168 17.770197 294000.000000 8646500.000000 0.19594
14.160031 25.631200 292000.000000 8647500.000000 0.20360
22.006390 9.913773 293000.000000 8645500.000000 0.63905
22.015054 25.632522 293000.000000 8647500.000000 0.11695
14.149825 9.907450 292000.000000 8645500.000000 0.15591
10.227244 21.699984 291500.000000 8647000.000000 0.18764
25.933794 13.842594 293500.000000 8646000.000000 0.34888
25.938789 21.698892 293500.000000 8647000.000000 0.41429
10.221263 13.838796 291500.000000 8646000.000000 0.28076
18.087616 25.631333 292500.000000 8647500.000000 0.10959
18.077580 9.910027 292500.000000 8645500.000000 0.24635
10.223672 17.770203 291500.000000 8646500.000000 0.35700
25.937287 17.772641 293500.000000 8646500.000000 0.22251
18.085109 21.700083 292500.000000 8647000.000000 0.10181
18.079930 13.840209 292500.000000 8646000.000000 0.18235
14.153941 17.770150 292000.000000 8646500.000000 0.16283
22.010110 17.772608 293000.000000 8646500.000000 0.29374
Total RMS Error 0.43977
 193

Table B-2. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 30-L.

X Source Y Source X Map Y Map Residual

6.158426 29.412780 294000.000000 8648000.000000 0.23731
29.686478 5.788753 297000.000000 8645000.000000 0.33440
29.715390 29.386246 297000.000000 8648000.000000 0.78455
6.133564 5.806488 294000.000000 8645000.000000 0.78285
10.084121 25.477320 294500.000000 8647500.000000 0.46051
14.002285 21.535080 295000.000000 8647000.000000 0.36572
17.924852 17.602631 295500.000000 8646500.000000 0.22529
21.844907 13.666274 296000.000000 8646000.000000 0.31882
25.766193 9.727567 296500.000000 8645500.000000 0.16087
25.787367 25.460109 296500.000000 8647500.000000 0.11226
21.854968 21.530109 296000.000000 8647000.000000 0.17459
13.992468 13.672616 295000.000000 8646000.000000 0.21647
10.062377 9.739876 294500.000000 8645500.000000 0.21952
10.091011 29.413736 294500.000000 8648000.000000 0.88879
25.762499 5.796214 296500.000000 8645000.000000 0.34526
25.793931 29.392991 296500.000000 8648000.000000 0.21992
10.061288 5.806109 294500.000000 8645000.000000 0.70658
6.149885 25.479815 294000.000000 8647500.000000 0.66633
29.693939 9.722273 297000.000000 8645500.000000 0.15628
29.715059 25.455160 297000.000000 8647500.000000 0.29944
6.131158 9.738912 294000.000000 8645500.000000 0.81699
14.013624 29.408804 295000.000000 8648000.000000 0.50802
21.837566 5.803749 296000.000000 8645000.000000 0.89226
21.872371 29.396468 296000.000000 8648000.000000 0.79140
13.980069 5.801196 295000.000000 8645000.000000 0.46843
6.147427 21.540236 294000.000000 8647000.000000 0.66006
29.700042 13.656190 297000.000000 8646000.000000 0.16574
29.709159 21.519217 297000.000000 8647000.000000 0.59902
6.137458 13.676122 294000.000000 8646000.000000 0.35102
17.944974 29.401230 295500.000000 8648000.000000 0.66671
17.911210 5.801215 295500.000000 8645000.000000 0.28936
6.142112 17.610009 294000.000000 8646500.000000 0.37021
29.700436 17.589833 297000.000000 8646500.000000 0.47551
14.007247 25.472592 295000.000000 8647500.000000 0.18741
21.841308 9.732529 296000.000000 8645500.000000 0.27041
21.861407 25.465144 296000.000000 8647500.000000 0.10048
13.987709 9.737453 295000.000000 8645500.000000 0.01444
10.073721 21.540006 294500.000000 8647000.000000 0.37853
25.772595 13.662825 296500.000000 8646000.000000 0.30063
25.782541 21.525070 296500.000000 8647000.000000 0.29874
10.066230 13.675335 294500.000000 8646000.000000 0.11708
17.935030 25.470080 295500.000000 8647500.000000 0.28563
17.914990 9.735117 295500.000000 8645500.000000 0.17972
10.069889 17.610072 294500.000000 8646500.000000 0.32662
25.776272 17.595158 296500.000000 8646500.000000 0.22409
17.930080 21.532542 295500.000000 8647000.000000 0.24630
17.920177 13.670241 295500.000000 8646000.000000 0.37348
13.997634 17.605307 295000.000000 8646500.000000 0.11703
21.850032 17.600182 296000.000000 8646500.000000 0.36978
Total RMS Error 0.44157
 194

Table B-3. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 31-K.

X Source Y Source X Map Y Map Residual

6.117956 29.204058 291000.000000 8645000.000000 0.70305
29.861008 5.881759 294000.000000 8642000.000000 0.92071
29.641996 29.432983 294000.000000 8645000.000000 1.84077
6.362439 5.617872 291000.000000 8642000.000000 2.30618
10.079728 25.320100 291500.000000 8644500.000000 0.79479
14.036241 21.430422 292000.000000 8644000.000000 0.55825
17.990348 17.531490 292500.000000 8643500.000000 0.91387
21.943307 13.652014 293000.000000 8643000.000000 0.81709
25.906523 9.768322 293500.000000 8642500.000000 0.73350
25.752599 25.472825 293500.000000 8644500.000000 0.21888
21.869909 21.508347 293000.000000 8644000.000000 0.39989
14.109809 13.577380 292000.000000 8643000.000000 1.02446
10.240356 9.601060 291500.000000 8642500.000000 0.79640
10.042706 29.246489 291500.000000 8645000.000000 0.64596
25.943188 5.839114 293500.000000 8642000.000000 0.60093
25.717118 29.398097 293500.000000 8645000.000000 0.74229
10.283155 5.669171 291500.000000 8642000.000000 1.46848
6.156981 25.276666 291000.000000 8644500.000000 0.69332
29.824888 9.800689 294000.000000 8642500.000000 0.26674
29.673514 25.509662 294000.000000 8644500.000000 0.77537
6.315692 9.552947 291000.000000 8642500.000000 1.18488
13.961133 29.285331 292000.000000 8645000.000000 0.53207
22.028043 5.798317 293000.000000 8642000.000000 0.49547
21.798531 29.362508 293000.000000 8645000.000000 0.47729
14.201078 5.717918 292000.000000 8642000.000000 1.37223
6.193763 21.349513 291000.000000 8644000.000000 0.94828
29.784190 13.730852 294000.000000 8643000.000000 0.16663
29.709463 21.583061 294000.000000 8644000.000000 0.44692
6.272864 13.485351 291000.000000 8643000.000000 0.85673
17.884895 29.324056 292500.000000 8645000.000000 1.06246
18.111547 5.761553 292500.000000 8642000.000000 0.95495
6.240574 17.408423 291000.000000 8643500.000000 1.23888
29.743957 17.649985 294000.000000 8643500.000000 1.13209
13.999171 25.357925 292000.000000 8644500.000000 0.54967
21.980153 9.727953 293000.000000 8642500.000000 1.23605
21.833704 25.434514 293000.000000 8644500.000000 0.06359
14.155129 9.642398 292000.000000 8642500.000000 0.37166
10.116283 21.391649 291500.000000 8644000.000000 0.76485
25.866051 13.694573 293500.000000 8643000.000000 0.55437
25.787232 21.547608 293500.000000 8644000.000000 0.41059
10.196215 13.539074 291500.000000 8643000.000000 1.13337
17.914612 25.395571 292500.000000 8644500.000000 0.23234
18.069341 9.686354 292500.000000 8642500.000000 0.51018
10.154069 17.454274 291500.000000 8643500.000000 0.60481
25.819966 17.608525 293500.000000 8643500.000000 1.68421
17.950428 21.467555 292500.000000 8644000.000000 0.51460
18.027758 13.611339 292500.000000 8643000.000000 0.49781
14.072373 17.490529 292000.000000 8643500.000000 1.02121
21.908077 17.574351 293000.000000 8643500.000000 0.61159
Total RMS Error 0.90451
 195

Table B-4. The 49 control points for georeferencing of 31-L.

X Source Y Source X Map Y Map Residual

6.572395 29.705047 294000.000000 8645000.000000 0.50265
30.048812 6.037402 297000.000000 8642000.000000 0.49579
30.127398 29.619814 297000.000000 8645000.000000 0.27689
6.483541 6.123923 294000.000000 8642000.000000 0.62939
10.483777 25.762444 294500.000000 8644500.000000 0.22411
14.397536 21.819997 295000.000000 8644000.000000 0.38477
18.308687 17.872549 295500.000000 8643500.000000 0.20725
22.220007 13.932495 296000.000000 8643000.000000 0.39414
26.136414 9.983605 296500.000000 8642500.000000 0.39660
26.187409 25.702512 296500.000000 8644500.000000 0.32359
22.248761 21.792550 296000.000000 8644000.000000 0.42552
14.367532 13.961010 295000.000000 8643000.000000 0.29856
10.425081 10.042617 294500.000000 8642500.000000 0.23047
10.498893 29.693943 294500.000000 8645000.000000 0.40946
26.122541 6.052459 296500.000000 8642000.000000 0.48940
26.200385 29.638507 296500.000000 8645000.000000 0.61290
10.412359 6.114764 294500.000000 8642000.000000 0.16927
6.552068 25.775106 294000.000000 8644500.000000 0.51359
30.063907 9.973308 297000.000000 8642500.000000 0.58017
30.114950 25.687065 297000.000000 8644500.000000 0.37426
6.493784 10.056205 294000.000000 8642500.000000 0.82117
14.426146 29.676433 295000.000000 8645000.000000 0.49654
22.196139 6.068768 296000.000000 8642000.000000 0.41048
22.276497 29.647589 296000.000000 8645000.000000 0.18104
14.341238 6.098861 295000.000000 8642000.000000 0.20833
6.537593 21.850133 294000.000000 8644000.000000 0.59238
30.072493 13.906276 297000.000000 8643000.000000 0.79150
30.097446 21.761175 297000.000000 8644000.000000 0.58451
6.511136 13.993770 294000.000000 8643000.000000 0.82509
18.351454 29.660081 295500.000000 8645000.000000 0.51488
18.265937 6.082374 295500.000000 8642000.000000 0.25609
6.527428 17.917649 294000.000000 8643500.000000 0.03124
30.083920 17.828671 297000.000000 8643500.000000 0.55955
14.411298 25.746200 295000.000000 8644500.000000 0.41343
22.209981 9.998611 296000.000000 8642500.000000 0.41172
22.262462 25.717527 296000.000000 8644500.000000 0.20038
14.352461 10.024852 295000.000000 8642500.000000 0.51879
10.468684 21.834906 294500.000000 8644000.000000 0.24848
26.146210 13.917387 296500.000000 8643000.000000 0.35623
26.172623 21.777352 296500.000000 8644000.000000 0.47379
10.441115 13.980182 294500.000000 8643000.000000 0.88217
18.336343 25.729905 295500.000000 8644500.000000 0.49175
18.280110 10.011254 295500.000000 8642500.000000 0.37673
10.456169 17.904937 294500.000000 8643500.000000 0.32191
26.158670 17.843741 296500.000000 8643500.000000 0.36154
18.322498 21.804920 295500.000000 8644000.000000 0.17362
18.294997 13.945061 295500.000000 8643000.000000 0.17645
14.382503 17.888762 295000.000000 8643500.000000 0.17788
22.235132 17.858825 296000.000000 8643500.000000 0.09664
Total RMS Error 0.44896
 196

B.2. How to clip and combine together parts of raster images

STEP 1 Start ArcMap. Open the GRID image of interest, which was resampled in the

previous process of georeferencing, by selecting “Add Data” from the “File” menu and

locating the file path. Although the warning message to inform the absence of spatial

reference information will come up again, it is just because the image has not been

projected yet. Hit “OK.”

STEP 2 Click the “Spatial Analyst” dropdown arrow in the “Spatial Analyst” toolbar

and click “Options” (Figure B-6). Then, select the “General” tab in the “Options” dialog

box. If you do not find the toolbar either plugged in the application window or floating

on the screen, select “Toolbars > Spatial Analyst” in the “View” menu.

Figure B-6. The “Spatial Analyst” toolbar of ArcMap.

STEP 3 Fill in the “Working directory” with the path of directory in which you want to

work. Because we will not use this GRID file after this process, “Analysis mask” has

no need to be created. Leave it as it is. Then, in the “Analysis Coordinate System”

section, make sure that the upper option, “Analysis output will be saved in the same

coordinate system as the input (or first raster input if there are multiple inputs),” is

selected. Click the “Extent” tab.

STEP 4 Be sure to select “As Specified Below” from the “Analysis extent” dropdown

textbox and fill in the four boxes (“Top,” “Bottom,” “Left,” and “Right”) with the values

corresponding to the extent of the image that you would like to clip out. The four
 197

coordinates for each of my quadrangles are listed below (Table B-5). When you finish

typing in the coordinates, click the “Cell Size” tab.

Table B-5. The extent of the scanned map images.

Map Top Bottom Left Right

30-K 8648000 8645000 291000 294000
30-L 8648000 8645000 294000 297000
31-K 8645000 8642000 291000 294000
31-L 8645000 8642000 294000 297000

STEP 5 Select “Same as Layer [layer name]” from the “Analysis cell size” dropdown

textbox. Leaving other items unchanged, click “OK.”

STEP 6 Click the “Spatial Analyst” dropdown arrow and select “Raster Calculator.”

Double-click the GRID file name (“rectify30-k” in my case) in the “Layers” window and

make sure that the selected file name will be listed in the box right below. Then, click

“Evaluate” (Figure B-7). Calculation program will be launched. The process may take

a while depending on the image size.

Figure B-7. The Raster Calculator. You can perform mathematical calculations using

operators and functions, execute selection queries, and type in Map Algebra syntax.
 198

STEP 7 Once the calculation process is complete, the resultant GRID image will be

added as a new layer in the table of contents. The colors for the attribute values (0 and

1) are randomly chosen, so your result may be different from the graphic below

(Figure B-8). You can change the colors as you like.

Figure B-8. The resultant GRID image after calculation process. Note that the margins around

the quadrangle have been cut off.

STEP 8 Right-click on the “Calculation” layer (new GRID image) in the table of

contents and select “Save As Layer File.” Specify the file path and name, and click

“Save.” In addition, layer file is not the GRID image itself, but a file that contains the

file path of the main body of image dataset and other layer property information.

STEP 9 Repeat the processes from Step 1 to 8 as many times as the number of the

images you would like to bond together (in my case, 4 times; 30-K, 30-L, 31-K, and

31-L).

STEP 10 Display all of the clipped images by opening their layer files from “Add Data” in

the “File” menu (Figure B-9).

 199

Figure B-9. All of the resultant GRID images displayed in the same map display window. They

have to fit each other.

STEP 11 Click the “Spatial Analyst” dropdown arrow in the “Spatial Analyst” toolbar

and click “Options.” Then, select the “Extent” tab in the “Options” dialog. If you want

to change your working directory, you can do it in the “General” tab.

STEP 12 Type in the extent of the envisioned image so that all of the clipped images you

want to combine are involved (in my case, 8648000 for top, 8642000 for bottom,

291000 for left, and 297000 for right). Then, click “OK.”

STEP 13 Click the “Spatial Analyst” dropdown arrow and select “Raster Calculator.”

Build your expression in the textbox at the bottom of the window following the syntax:

“merged image name = merge ([clipped image name 1], [clipped image name 2],

[clipped image name 3], … [clipped image name n])” (Figure B-10). You can fill in the

parenthesized names of clipped images by double-clicking the layer names listed in

the “Layers” window. Then, click “Evaluate.” Calculation program will be launched.
 200

Figure B-10. Raster Calculator. Merge function combines all of the clipped image datasets

into a large GRID image.

STEP 14 Once the calculation process is completed, the resultant GRID image will be

displayed in the map display window (Figure B-11). Save the layer as a layer file if you

want to (see Step 8). Click the “File” menu and click “Exit.” Click “No” if prompted to

save your changes.

Figure B-11. A new image dataset consisting of the four clipped GRID images.
 201

B.3. How to define projection and plane coordinate system

STEP 1 Start ArcToolbox. Double-click the “Define Projection Wizard (coverages, grids,

TINs)” in the directory tree (“Data Management Tools > Projections > Define Projection

Wizard (coverages, grids, TINs)”) (Figure B-12).

Figure B-12. The Define Projection Wizard (coverages, grids, TINs).

STEP 2 Select “Define the coordinate system interactively” and hit “Next.”

STEP 3 Specify the file path of the image dataset for which you want to define a

projection and plane coordinate system. Then, click “Next.” The procedures described

below are exclusively for the maps projected by the Provisional South American

Datum 1956 (PSAD56) and the UTM Zone 18 South (UTM18S). Prior to this operation,

you should know about the specific ellipsoidal model or datum and plane coordinate

system of your own image dataset.

 202

STEP 4 Select “UTM” from the “Projections” list and click “Next.”

STEP 5 Choose “meters” from the “Units” dropdown textbox and “18” from “Zone.”

Type in “10000000” in the “Y Shift (optional)” textbox. Then, hit “Next.”

STEP 6 Check “Datum” and select “PROV. SOUTH AMERICAN 1956 - Peru” from the

“Datum” list. Click “Next.”

STEP 7 Make sure of the contents of “Summary of your input” and click “Finish.” Click

the “Tools” menu and click “Exit.”

STEP 8 Start ArcMap. Open the GRID image that you merged in the previous section

again by selecting “Add Data” from the “File” menu and locating the file path. Before

the image is displayed, a dialog message will pop up (Figure B-13). Then, select “Build

pyramids” and hit “OK.” Pyramids are versions of a raster image dataset, varying from

coarse to fine resolution. They are referenced to improve the drawing speed of raster

layers when you zoom in and out (Ormsby et al. 2001:119). Building pyramids may

take a length of time in proportion to the size of your raster dataset.

Figure B-13. A dialog message prompting to build pyramids.

STEP 9 You may notice that the scale (1:43,157) in the “Standard” toolbar that has

been whited out so far is now active and that the display of “Unknown Units” on the
 203

status bar has been turned into “Meters” (Figure B-14). This means that the image

can be used as a map. Save the layer as a layer file if you want to (see B.2. Step 8).

Click the “File” menu and click “Exit.” Click “No” if prompted to save your changes.

Figure B-14. The resultant GRID dataset of topography map scanned, georeferenced, and

projected.

B.4. How to reproject a raster image

STEP 1 Every data layer in a GIS overlay needs to be georeferenced by the same

projection and coordinate system. Therefore, the downloaded SRTM-arc3 DEM which

is projected by WGS84 should be reprojected by the same combination of PSAD56 and

UTM18S whereby our topography maps are projected. Start ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6.

You will be prompted to choose “Classic Viewer” or “Geospatial Light Table.” Choose

the former and click “OK.”

STEP 2 Click the “DataPrep” icon located third left on the menu bar (Figure B-15).
 204

“Data Preparation” dialog window will appear.

Figure B-15. ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6 main menu bar.

STEP 3 Click “Reproject Images.” “Reproject Images” dialog window will open.

STEP 4 Locate the input and output files and click the “earth” icon beside the

“Categories” dropdown textbox (Figure B-16). “(Edited) Projection Chooser” dialog

window will open.

Figure B-16. The “Reproject Images” dialog window.

STEP 5 Select “Custom” tab. Define the parameters should be defined as follows

(Figure B-17):

Projection Type : UTM

Spheroid Name : International 1909
Datum Name : PSAD (Peru)
UTM Zone : 18
NORTH or SOUTH : South
 205

Figure B-17. The “Projection Chooser” dialog window.

STEP 6 Click “Save” to save the parameters. Type in “PSAD56” and “Peru” respectively

in the “Save as” textbox and “In Category” dropdown textbox of the “Save Projection”

dialog. Then, hit “OK.”

STEP 7 Hit “Yes” if a dialog that asks “The Projection category Peru does not exist. Do

you create a new category with this name to save the item PSAD56?” comes up. Then,

type in an appropriate name for the new category (e.g., “peru-psad56”) and click “OK.”

You will get back to the “Project Images” dialog window.

STEP 8 Respectively from the “Categories” and “Projection” dropdown lists, select

“Peru” and “PSAD56” which you just defined in the previous few steps.

STEP 9 Make sure that “meters” is being selected from the “Units” dropdown list and

the “Ignore Zero in Stats” checkbox is checked.

STEP 10 Select “Nearest Neighbor” for “Resample Method.” Then, choose either

“Rigorous Transformation” or “Polynomial Approximation.” The former is a slow but

more rigid process in terms of geometric fidelity that directly uses the original

mathematical formula of projections for reprojection without approximation, while

 206

the latter is a fast and commonly accepted process that uses polynomials to

approximate the transformation between map projections. If you do not have specific

preference, choose “Polynomial Approximation.”

STEP 11 Once you select “Polynomial Approximation,” the lower portion of the dialog

will be active. However, leave the parameters unchanged and click “OK” (Figure B-18).

The resampling process will begin.

Figure B-18. The “Reproject Images” dialog window.

STEP 12 After the resampling process is complete, click the leftmost “Viewer” icon on

the menu bar and open the Viewer (Figure B-15). Display the resultant DEM in the

Viewer to see if it was properly reprojected.

 207

B.5. How to clip a subset from raster image

STEP 1 Start ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6. You will be prompted to choose “Classic Viewer” or

“Geospatial Light Table.” Choose the former and click “OK.”

STEP 2 Click the “Viewer” icon located leftmost on the menu bar (Figure B-15). A

“Viewer” window will open. Open the DEM reprojected in the previous section.

STEP 3 Choose “Inquire Box” from the “Utility” menu. The “Inquire Box” window will

open (Figure B-19).

Figure B-19. The input DEM displayed in a Viewer and the “Inquire Box” dialog window.
 208

STEP 4 Click the “DataPrep” icon located third left on the menu bar (Figure B-15).

“Data Preparation” dialog window will appear.

STEP 5 Click “Subset Image” to open the “Subset” dialog window.

STEP 6 Locate the input and output files and select “Float Single” from the “Output”

dropdown list of “Data Type” section (Figure B-20). Then, hit “OK.”

Figure B-20. The “Subset” dialog window.

B.6. How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs (Phase I)

STEP 1 Start ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6. You will be prompted to choose “Classic Viewer” or

“Geospatial Light Table.” Choose the former and click “OK.”

 209

STEP 2 Click the “OrthoBASE” icon located second right on the menu bar (Figure

B-15). “OrthoBASE Startup” dialog window will appear.

STEP 3 All the parameters you input can be saved as an OrthoBASE project in a

binary file with the .blk extension called “block file.” If you have a previously created

project, you can resume working on it here. Since you get started with a new project

this time, select “Create a new OrthoBASE project” and hit “OK.”

STEP 4 Name the new project and save it in an appropriate folder.

STEP 5 Once you created a new project, you get started with defining some basic

properties for the block file. First, you select a geometric model that corresponds to

the type of camera that obtained the images. Choose “Frame Camera” from the list in

the textbox and click “OK” (Figure B-21). The “Block Property Setup” dialog will open.

Figure B-21. The “Model Setup” dialog window.

STEP 6 Next, you define spatial reference information. Click the “Set Projection”

button to open the “Projection Chooser” dialog and click the “Custom” tab of the

dialog. Select “UTM,” “International 1909,” “PSAD56(Peru),” “18,” and “South”

 210

respectively from the “Projection Type,” “Spheroid Name,” “Datum Name,” “UTM

Zone,” and “NORTH or SOUTH” dropdown textboxes (Figure B-22). Then, press “OK.”

Figure B-22. The “Projection Chooser” dialog window.

STEP 7 Confirm the projection parameters that you input and hit “Next.”

STEP 8 Make sure that “Meters,” “Meters,” and “Degree” are being selected

respectively from the “Horizontal Units,” “Vertical Units,” and “Angle Units”

dropdown textboxes. Then, click “Next.”

STEP 9 For “Rotation System,” “Omega, Phi, Kappa” is the most commonly used

convention, recommended by ISPRS, whereas other two systems are primarily used

respectively in Germany and China. Make sure that “Omega, Phi, Kappa” system is

being selected. For “Photo Direction,” “Z-axis for normal images” should be selected

when you use aerial photographs. The other option, “Y-axis for close range images,”

should be selected when you use ground-based photography. Check the “Define

Average Fly Height (meters)” checkbox and type in “1600” in the textbox (Figure B-23).

Then, hit OK. Now, the “Block Property Setup” is completed. The “OrthoBASE” main

window will open.

 211

Figure B-23. The “Set Frame-Specific Information” dialog window.

STEP 10 Now you are going to define the parameters necessary for orthorectification of

the images in order. They include imagery location, camera information, fiducial mark

measurements, GCP measurements, and so forth. Select “Add Frame” from the “Edit”

menu or click the “Add Frame” icon on the menu bar to add the images to the list.

Prior to following this step, be sure to confirm that the image files are not read-only

and thus can be modified. The added images will be listed in the dialog. You will see

some cells on the right of the image list which are shaded in red or green (Figure B-24).

The red columns are labeled as “Pyr.” (Compute Pyramid Layers), “Int.” (Interior

Orientation), “Ext.” (Exterior Information), “DTM” (Digital Terrain Model), and “Ortho”

(Orthorectification). Some parameters need to be defined for each category in order.

Figure B-24. The OrthoBASE Pro main window.

 212

STEP 11 First, click either cell in the “Pyr.” Column or choose “Compute Pyramid

Layers” from the “Edit” menu to build pyramids. The “Compute Pyramid Layers”

dialog will appear. Select “All Images Without Pyramids” and hit “OK” to start

computing pyramid layer for the image. A gauge at the bottom of the dialog shows the

progress of computation as the pyramid layer is created. When it is completed, the

formerly red cells in the “Pyr.” column will turn into green (Figure B-25).

Figure B-25. The OrthoBASE Pro main window (Pyramids created).

STEP 12 Before you set up the parameters for “Int.” and “Ext.,” you need to specify your

camera model (or “Sensor” model). Click the “Show and edit frame properties” button

second left on the menu bar or choose “Frame Editor” from the “Edit” menu. The

“Frame Editor (626.tif)” dialog will open. In the parenthesis will be inserted the image

file name.

STEP 13 Hit the “New” button to open the “Camera Information” dialog. In the “General”

tab, type in “Unknown,” “PAP2004 626 and 649,” and “152.67” respectively in the

“Camera Name,” “Description,” and “Focal Length (mm)” textboxes (Figure B-26).

Since we are not sure of the X-Y coordinates of the principal point, assuming that it is

located accurately at (0, 0) with no displacement, leave the “Principal Point xo (mm)”

and “Principal Point yo (mm)” textboxes as they are. Then, click the “Fiducials” tab.
 213

Figure B-26. The “Camera Information” dialog window.

STEP 14 Type in “4” in the “Number of Fiducials” textbox and modify the numbers in

the table as shown in Table B-6. Then, click “OK.” You will get back to the “Frame

Editor (626.tif)” dialog.

Table B-6. The four hypothetical fiducials.

Row # (Fiducial Points) Film X (mm) Film Y (mm)

1 -106.000 -106.000
2 106.000 106.000
3 -106.000 106.000
4 106.000 -106.000

STEP 15 Now you are going to measure the fiducial marks in the image in order to

define Interior Orientation (“Int.”). Select the “Interior Orientation” tab and click the

“Open viewer for image measurement” icon, located leftmost in the “Viewer Fiducial

Locator” icon group (Figure B-27). The “Main View” window will open on top of the

“Frame Editor” dialog with the “Over View” that shows the entire image and the “Detail

View” that shows a part of the image.

 214

Figure B-27. The Viewer Fiducial Locator.

STEP 16 Since the data strip (e.g., usually focal length, clock, level bubble, altimeter,

etc.) is located on the right-hand side in 626.tif, the image needs to be rotated 180°

degree relative to the photo-coordinate system. Select the second right icon of the

“Fiducial Orientation” icon group (Figure B-28). Then, the square boxes called “Link

Cursors” and adjacent crosshairs displayed in the “Over View” and “Main View”

windows will move to the upper right corner of the image. This is the approximate

location of the first fiducial. For 649.tif, in addition, the photo-coordinate system

parallels to the image orientation with the data strip on the left; therefore, the image

does not need to be rotated. The leftmost icon should be chosen.

Data strip on the right (626.tif) Data strip on the left (649.tif)

Figure B-28. Fiducial Orientations.

STEP 17 The “Link Cursor” and crosshair are useful tools to resize and reposition the

area of interest. When you want to resize the area, drag a corner of the square and

adjust it smaller (to zoom in) or larger (to zoom out). To reposition, drag a crosshair or
 215

the center of the square to the desired location and release the mouth button. Using

these tools, locate the first fiducial marks so as to view it in the “Detail View” window.

STEP 18 Click the “Place Image Fiducial” icon located center of the “Viewer Fiducial

Locator” icon group. Then, place your cursor, which was turned into a crosshair, in

the center of the first fiducial point and click. The spot will be marked by a small

circled green cross with number 1 (“#1”), and the “Image X” and “Image Y” columns

will be filled out with the file CellArray, which is a set of coordinates measured from

the image in pixels (Figure B-29). Since the display will automatically move to the

approximate location of the next fiducial point, repeat this step until you mark all of

the 4 fiducials. If you miss the spot that you wished to mark, you can drag the circled

green cross to the desired location later.

Figure B-29. The Fiducial Locator.

 216

STEP 19 Once you finish marking all fiducials, the display will get back to the first

fiducial, and RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) will be calculated and reported in the

rightmost section of the “Interior Orientation” tab (Figure B-30). It is generally said

that RMSE should be ideally less than a pixel. However, since we input theoretical

values of “106.000” or “-106.000” for the film coordinates of fiducial points (Step 14)

to complement the lack of information of our camera report, RMSE will inevitably be

substantial (4.17 pixels for 626.tif) even though I accurately locate all fiducials.

Figure B-30. Measured fiducials and RMSE.

STEP 20 Click “Next.” You’re going to repeat the same process for 649.tif. Be sure to

confirm that the leftmost of the “Fiducial Orientation” icon group is being selected.

When you finish marking all fiducials for 649.tif, push off the “Open viewer for image
 217

measurement” icon to close the view windows.

STEP 21 Click the “Exterior information” tab. Since the exterior information is not

available in our camera report, leave all of the parameters in this tab as they are and

hit “OK” to close the “Frame Editor” dialog (Figure B-31). You will get back to the

OrthoBASE Pro main window. Note that the formerly red “Int.” column of the image

list turned into green.

Figure B-31. Exterior Information.

STEP 22 Next, you are going to define ground control points in order to determine the

exterior orientations of the images. Select “Point Measurement” from the “Edit” menu

or click the “Point Measurement” icon, third left on the menu bar. Then, the “Point

Measurement (Left view: 626.tif Right view: 649.tif)” window will open (Figure B-32).

STEP 23 Click the “Add” button at the upper right corner of the window to add a new

row to the Point # list in the lower portion of the window. In this new row, click the

“Type” and “Usage” columns and select “Full” and “Control” respectively from their

pop-up lists. A Full GCP is the point that has X, Y, and Z coordinates, and Control

stands for a control pint.

STEP 24 Using the “Select Tool” (arrow icon) in the Point Measurement tool palette to

resize and reposition the display, locate the first GCP for 626.tif in the “Detail View.”
 218

Then, click the “Create Point” icon (cross icon) and mark the spot. As with the case of

fiducial points, the GCP will be marked by a small circled green cross with Point ID.

Concurrently, X and Y File coordinates will be measured and listed with the image

number and name in the lower right window. Repeat the same process for 649.tif.

Additionally, the image 626.tif is displayed on the left-hand side and 649.tif on the

right.

Figure B-32. The “Point Measurement (Left view: 626.tif Right view: 649.tif)” window.

STEP 25 Type in the “Description,” “X Reference,” “Y Reference,” and “Z Reference”

textboxes according to Table B-7 and Figure B-33. Note that some of the GCPs show

only in either 626 or 649.tif.

 219

Table B-7. The 10 Ground Control Points for triangulation.

Point ID Description X Reference Y Reference Z Reference 626/649

1 Panamericana E 293053.030594 8644971.451042 32 626/649
2 Puente Lurín 294124.830563 8645145.555089 20 649
3 Piramide V 293395.079902 8645003.121138 28 626/649
4 Mamacuna 293010.554617 8644706.332327 18 626/649
5 Piramide XIV 293757.006375 8644685.831222 40 649
6 Cementerio 293554.620823 8644341.724585 30 626/649
7 Templo del Sol 293289.876711 8644015.938500 74 626/649
8 Coliseo 292886.856044 8643849.684808 8 626/649
9 Camacho Primero 294524.620987 8643777.783216 12 649
10 Panamericana W 292049.206456 8644873.060726 9 626

Figure B-33. Ground Control Points (Phase I).

STEP 26 Repeat Steps 23 through 25 for all GCPs (Figure B-33). When you finish

placing all GCPs, click the “Automatic Tie Point Collection Properties” icon located

second left on the second row in the Point Measurement tool palette. The “Automatic

Tie Point Generation Properties” dialog opens.

 220

STEP 27 Make sure that “All available” and “Exterior/Header/GCP” are being selected

respectively for “Images Used” and “Initial Type.” The “Image Layer Used for

Computation” property should be set to “1.” Then, type “15” in the “Intended Number

of Points Per Image” field and confirm that the “Keep All Points” checkbox is off

(unchecked). Click “Run” to start creating tie points. When the process is completed,

you will get back to the “Point Measurement” window (Figure B-34).

Figure B-34. Tie points to be automatically computed.

STEP 28 Click “Save” and “Close.” You will be returned to the OrthoBASE Pro main

window.

STEP 29 Select “Triangulation Properties” from the “Edit” menu. The “Aerial

Triangulation” dialog will open.

 221

STEP 30 Click the “Point” tab in the “Aerial Triangulation” dialog. Then, choose “Same

weighted values” from the “Type” dropdown list and click “Run.” The triangulation

process will be launched. When the process is completed, the “Triangulation

Summary” dialog will be generated and opened (Figure B-35).

Figure B-35. The “Triangulation Summary” dialog window.

STEP 31 Click “Update” to update the exterior orientation parameters that were left

blank. In case that you entered the exterior orientation parameters during the

measurement of fiducials, those values will be replaced with new values computed by

IMAGINE OrthoBASE based on the control and tie points in the images processed.

STEP 32 You may wish to save this report for future reference. You can save it into a

text file by clicking “Report” (see Appendices F.1). The Triangulation Report will open

in a separate Text Editor dialog (Figure B-36). Choose “Save as” from the “File” menu

of the dialog and name the report.

STEP 33 Click “Close” to close the “Triangulation Summary” dialog. You will be

returned to the “Aerial Triangulation” dialog.

 222

Figure B-36. Triangulation Report.

STEP 34 Click “Accept” to accept the triangulation parameters and hit “OK.” Note that

the “Ext.” column of the OrthoBASE Pro main window turned into green (Figure

B-37).

Figure B-37. The OrthoBASE Pro main window (Triangulation completed).

 223

STEP 35 Click the “Ortho Resampling” icon located rightmost on the menu bar of the

OrthoBASE Pro main window to open the “Ortho Resampling” dialog.

STEP 36 Select “DEM” from the “DTM Source” dropdown list and make sure that

“Meters” is being selected for “Vertical Units.” Then, click the “DEM File Name”

dropdown list to select “Find DEM.” Locate the small DEM prepared in the previous

section (B.5. “How to clip a subset from raster image”). Once the DEM file is

appropriately located, the “Output Cell Sized” and the file extent textboxes will be

automatically filled out (Figure B-38). Click the “Advanced” tab.

Figure B-38. The “Ortho Resampling” dialog window (Phase I).

 224

STEP 37 Click the “Resample Method” dropdown list and choose “Bilinear

Interpolation.” Then, click the checkbox next to “Ignore Value” and leave the value of 0

as it is. Hit “Add” to open the “Add Single Output” dialog.

STEP 38 By default, OrthoBASE Pro assumes that you only want to generate an

orthoimage for the first image in the block file, which is 626.img in our case. Therefore,

649.tif needs to be added manually. Select “649.tif” from the “Input File Name” and

specify the name of the output file in the “Output File Name” textbox. Then, click the

“Use Current Cell Sizes” checkbox and hit “OK” (Figure B-39).

Figure B-39. The “Add Single Output” dialog window.

STEP 39 Confirm that 649.tif in the block file were added to the CellArray in the “Ortho

Resampling” dialog window. Then, click “OK.” The resampling process will begin and a

status dialog window will open, tracking the process (Figure B-40).

Figure B-40. The status dialog window.

STEP 40 When the status dialog reaches 100% complete, hit “OK” to dismiss it. Open
 225

the resultant orthoimages in the Viewer to see if they were successfully processed

(Figure B-41). Then, Save the block file.

Figure B-41. The resultant orthoimages 626 and 649.

B.7. How to digitize ground features in orthophotos and topography map

STEP 1 Start ArcCatalog. Move to an appropriate folder in which you wish to create

new shapefiles so that the contents in the folder will be displayed in the lower right

portion of the main window. Make sure that the “Contents” tab is being selected

(Figure B-42).
 226

Figure B-42. The ArcCatalog main window.

STEP 2 Select “New” > “Shapefile” from the “File” menu. The “Create New Shapefile”

dialog window will open (Figure B-43).

Figure B-43. The “Create New Shapefile” dialog window.

STEP 3 Fill in the “Name” textbox and select an appropriate feature type from the
 227

“Feature Type” dropdown textbox. Contour lines and archaeological structures are

saved as Polyline features and labeled respectively as “contour” and “architectures,”

while elevation points are saved as a Point feature and labeled as “elevation.” Then,

click the “Edit” button to define spatial reference information. The “Spatial Reference

Properties” dialog window will open.

STEP 4 Press “Select” to open the coordinate system locator and select “Projected

Coordinate Systems” > “Utm” > “Other GCS” > “Prov. S. Amer. Datum UTM Zone

18S.prj.” Make sure that “Prov. S. Amer. Datum UTM Zone 18S.prj” is displayed in the

“Name” textbox and click “Add.”

STEP 5 Confirm the parameters of the coordinate system shown in the “Details”

window of the “Spatial Reference Properties” dialog. Then, hit “OK” (Figure B-44). You

will get back to the “Create New Shapefile” dialog window.

Alias:
Abbreviation:
Remarks:
Projection: Transverse_Mercator
Parameters:
False_Easting: 500000.000000
False_Northing: 10000000.000000
Central_Meridian: -75.000000
Scale_Factor: 0.999600
Latitude_Of_Origin: 0.000000
Linear Unit: Meter (1.000000)
Geographic Coordinate System:
Name: GCS_Provisional_S_American_1956
Alias:
Abbreviation:
Remarks:
Angular Unit: Degree (0.017453292519943295)
Prime Meridian: Greenwich (0.000000000000000000)
Datum: D_Provisional_S_American_1956
Spheroid: International_1924
Semimajor Axis: 6378388.000000000000000000
Semiminor Axis: 6356911.946127946500000000
Inverse Flattening: 297.000000000000000000

Figure B-44. The “Spatial Reference Properties” dialog window.

 228

STEP 6 Confirm that the names of the projected and geographic coordinate systems

(“PSAD_1956_UTM_Zone_18S” and “GCS_Provisional_S_American_1956”) are

displayed in the “Description” window of the “Create New Shapefile” dialog and check

“Coordinate will contain Z values. Used to store 3D data.” Then, click “OK.”

STEP 7 A new shapefile will be created and shown in both the folder tree (left) and

contents window (right) of the ArcCatalog main window.

STEP 8 The on-screen digitizing is to be performed on the topography map layer and

the orthophotos created in the previous sections. In so doing, the Editor toolbar of

ArcMap is very useful. Click the ArcMap icon on the menu bar of ArcCatalog to start

ArcMap. You will be prompted to choose three options with which you wish to start

using ArcMap: (1) “A new empty map,” (2) “A template,” or (3) “An existing map.” Since

you do not have either template or existing map, choose “A new empty map.”

STEP 9 Select “Add Data” from the “File” menu and locate the file paths of the

orthoimages 626 and 649, the layer file of topography map (see B.3. Step 9), the three

shapefiles (elevation points, contour lines, and architectures) to open them as six

separate data layers (Figure B-45).

STEP 10 If you cannot find the “Editor” toolbar in the ArcMap main window, select

“Toolbars > Editor” from the “View” menu to call it up. The “Editor” toolbar will appear

somewhere on the screen. You can drag it into the menu bar of ArcMap or wherever

you wan to place. Then, in the toolbar click the “Editor” down-arrow button and select

“Start Editing.” The toolbar will be made enabled (Figure B-46). Make sure that

“Create New Feature” is being selected from the “Task” dropdown list.
 229

Figure B-45. The two orthoimages and topography map.

Figure B-46. The “Editor” toolbar of ArcMap.

STEP 11 Click the “Sketch Tool” icon and select from the “Target” dropdown list the

shapefile that you wish to modify. The cursor will change from the black arrow (Edit

Tool) to a black crosshair accompanied by a blue dot (Sketch Tool), while “Create New

Feature” and “Sketch Tool” are being selected. By clicking, place the vertices to trace

the ground features in the orthophotos and contour lines and elevation points in the

topography map (Figure B-47). You may want to use Zoom In and Out tools and Pan

tool to locate and resize the area of interest.

 230

Figure B-47. On-screen digitizing.

STEP 12 In case that you miss the spot at which you wish to place a vertex, you can

undo it by pressing “Z” while you are holding “Ctrl” key in your keyboard. If you want

to modify a vertex or a set of vertices afterward, you can also delete or move them to

the right positions. First, double-click the feature of interest to display its edit sketch.

Then, in order to delete a vertex, right-click on the vertex that you want to delete and

select “Delete Vertex” from the pop-up menu. In order to move it, left-click on the

vertex and drag it to the desired position. Besides these, you can use a series of useful

functions. Consult the ArcGIS Desktop Help for more advanced operations.

STEP 13 When you finish digitizing for all of the three shapefiles, click the “Editor”

down-arrow button and choose “Stop Editing.” All the vertices will be saved in the
 231

shapefiles. Be sure to save the work in progress in order not to loose it by accident.

You can save it by selecting “Save Edits” from the “Editor” dropdown list.

B.8. How to change projection and coordinate system

STEP 1 Start ArcToolbox. Double-click the “Project Wizard (shapefiles, geodatabase)”

in the directory tree (“Data Management Tools > Projections > Projection Wizard

(shapefiles, geodatabase)”) (Figure B-48).

Figure B-48. Project Wizard (shapefiles, geodatabase).

STEP 2 Locate the input file path that you wish to re-project. Make sure that the file

name with its absolute file path and current coordinate system will appear when you

select the file (Figure B-49). In this case, “GCS_WGS84_84” is displayed as the current
 232

coordinate system. Then, hit “Next.” In addition, you can choose multiple files and

re-project them at a time.

Figure B-49. Selection of the input shapefile.

STEP 3 Locate the directory in which the output file is to be saved and name the file.

Then, click “Next.”

STEP 4 Press the “Select Coordinate System” button. The “Spatial Reference

Properties” dialog window will come up.

STEP 5 Click “Select” and specify the projected coordinate system. For UTM18S

projected by PSAD56, for instance, select “Projected Coordinate Systems” > “Utm” >

“Other GCS” > “Prov. S. Amer. Datum UTM Zone 18S.prj.” Then, click “Add.” You will

get back to the “Spatial Reference Properties” window.

STEP 6 Confirm the projection parameters that you input and click “OK” (Figure B-50).

You will be returned to the “Project Ward (shapefile, geodatabase)” window.

 233

Alias:
Abbreviation:
Remarks:
Projection: Transverse_Mercator
Parameters:
False_Easting: 500000.000000
False_Northing: 10000000.000000
Central_Meridian: -75.000000
Scale_Factor: 0.999600
Latitude_Of_Origin: 0.000000
Linear Unit: Meter (1.000000)
Geographic Coordinate System:
Name: GCS_Provisional_S_American_1956
Alias:
Abbreviation:
Remarks:
Angular Unit: Degree (0.017453292519943295)
Prime Meridian: Greenwich (0.000000000000000000)
Datum: D_Provisional_S_American_1956
Spheroid: International_1924
Semimajor Axis: 6378388.000000000000000000
Semiminor Axis: 6356911.946127946500000000
Inverse Flattening: 297.000000000000000000

Figure B-50. The “Spatial Reference Properties” dialog window.

STEP 7 The same information will be displayed again in the “Details” textbox. If it is

correct, hit “Next.”

STEP 8 Click the “Set Transformation” button to open the “Geographic Coordinate

System Transformations” dialog window. Input (“Converting from”) and output GCS

(“to”) will be automatically filled out. Confirm them and hit “OK” (Figure B-51).

Figure B-51. The “Geographic Coordinate System Transformations” dialog window.

 234

STEP 9 Make sure that the “Geographic Transformation” column in the textbox is

filled out with the geographic transformation that you just chose in the previous step

(“PSAD_1956_To_WGS_1984_1”) and click “Next” (Figure B-52).

Figure B-52. Selection of the geographic transformation(s).

STEP 10 The next two dialog windows will be displayed just to show (1) the estimated

output extent based on the input dataset and (2) summary of your input. In the first

window (“Coordinate extents for the output dataset”; Figure B-53), you can modify the

values if you want to. Then, click “Next” and “Finish” in the second window. When the

transformation process is completed, select “Exit” from the “Tools” menu to close

ArcToolbox.

STEP 11 Start ArcMap. Open the output shapefile and superimpose it over other data

layers with the same projection and coordinate system. Be sure that you can do so

with no problem (Figure B-54).

 235

Figure B-53. Coordinate extents for the output dataset.

Figure B-54. DGPS points superimposed over the orthophoto 649.

 236

B.9. How to create a new DEM out of multipoint and line features

STEP 1 Start ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6. You will be prompted to choose “Classic Viewer” or

“Geospatial Light Table.” Choose the former and click “OK.”

STEP 2 Click the “DataPrep” icon located third left on the menu bar (Figure B-15).

“Data Preparation” dialog window will appear.

STEP 3 Click “Create Surface” to open the “3D Surfacing” dialog window (Figure B-55).

Figure B-55. The “3D Surfacing” dialog window.

STEP 4 Click the “Read Points” icon leftmost on the menu bar to open the “Input Data”

dialog window.

STEP 5 In order to read out the 3D coordinate information of DGPS points, first of all,

check “Point Data” and choose “Shapefile” from the “Source File Type” dropdown list.

Then, locate the source file of DGPS points, check “Attribute For Z,” and select from

the dropdown list the column in which attribute data for elevation are stored

(“ORTHOHEIGHT”) (Figure B-56). Once you hit “OK,” the “Surfacing” dialog window

will come up, and the reading process will be launched.

STEP 6 When the reading process is completed, hit “OK” to dismiss the dialog. The
 237

Data input above will be displayed in the window in a tabular format (Figure B-57).

Click the “Read Points” icon again.

Figure B-56. The “Input Data” dialog window (Point Data to be read out).

Figure B-57. The 3D coordinate information of DGPS points.

STEP 7 Repeat the steps 5 and 6 to read out the elevation points shapefile.

STEP 8 In order to read out the contour lines shapefile, which is a Polyline feature,
 238

choose “Breakline Data” and select “Shapefile” from the “Source File Type” dropdown

list. Then, locate the source file, choose from the “Attribute For Z” the column in

which attribute data for elevation are stored (“Z”), and select “Soft Link” from the

“Breakline Type” dropdown list. Hit “OK” (Figure B-58). Once you hit “OK,” the

“Surfacing” dialog window will come up, and the reading process will be launched.

Figure B-58. The “Input Data” dialog window (Breakline Data to be read out).

STEP 9 When the reading process is completed, hit “OK” to dismiss the dialog. The

Data input will be added to the table in the “3D Surfacing” window. Then, click the

“Perform Surfacing” icon rightmost on the menu bar to open the “Surfacing” dialog

window.

STEP 10 Specify the output file name and path and select “Non-linear Rubber Sheeting”

from the “Surfacing Method” dropdown list. Then, click the “Ignore Zero In Output

Stats” checkbox to enable it, select “Float Single” from the “Output Data Type”

dropdown list, and hit “OK” (Figure B-59). The surfacing process will begin and a

status dialog window will open, tracking the process.

 239

Figure B-59. The “Surfacing” dialog window.

STEP 11 When the surfacing process is completed, click “OK” to dismiss the status

dialog.

B.10. How to perform geometric corrections of aerial photographs through an

automated DTM extraction (Phase III)

STEP 1 Follow Steps 1 through 24 of B.6 “How to perform geometric corrections of

aerial photographs (Phase I).”

STEP 2 Type in the “Description,” “X Reference,” “Y Reference,” and “Z Reference”

fields with reference to Table B-8 and Figure B-60. Note that some of the GCPs show

only in 649.tif.
 240

Table B-8. The 21 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase III).

Point ID Description X Reference Y Reference Z Reference 626/649

1 USHNU 293372.708199 8644386.205184 34.28727 626/649
2 PWR13 293458.514662 8644464.173309 38.34640 626/649
3 ROOM 293364.250519 8644472.623991 34.94863 626/649
4 POST 293301.566633 8644346.418556 34.65171 626/649
5 WLCNR1 293210.208724 8644379.107112 33.35287 626/649
6 WLEND 293219.315473 8644522.881528 30.42555 626/649
7 WLCNR2 293538.484720 8644559.424469 25.99706 626/649
8 WLCNR3 293679.974777 8644566.494306 28.43733 649
9 STORAGE1 293743.986557 8644444.755863 31.45113 649
10 PINTADO 293483.472668 8644294.829542 51.38184 626/649
11 TMPLSOL 293381.621784 8643981.531162 93.69171 626/649
12 MAMACONA 292980.354831 8644629.715267 16.40138 626/649
13 STORAGE2 293666.297344 8645057.536914 36.65530 626/649
14 TAURICHUMPI 294036.872321 8644966.682700 51.75549 649
15 QUIPUHOUSE 293910.408524 8644726.965556 54.14340 649
16 PWR2 293622.660137 8644727.110304 51.62682 626/649
17 PWR1 293357.441795 8644637.207526 40.56282 626/649
18 STORAGE3 293210.846044 8644704.791648 31.22612 626/649
19 EASTEND 294020.506083 8644479.351763 42.91762 649
20 PWR3 293731.638615 8644785.403537 68.24042 649
21 STORAGE4 293440.298909 8644936.131793 34.93833 626/649

STEP 3 Repeat Steps 23 through 25 of B.6 for all of 21 GCPs (Figure B-60). When you

finish placing all GCPs, click the “Automatic Tie Point Collection Properties” icon

located second left on the second row in the Point Measurement tool palette. The

“Automatic Tie Point Generation Properties” dialog will open.

STEP 4 Make sure that “All available” and “Exterior/Header/GCP” are being selected

respectively for “Images Used” and “Initial Type.” The “Image Layer Used for

Computation” property should be set to “1.” Then, type “30” in the “Intended Number

of Points Per Image” field and confirm that the “Keep All Points” checkbox is off

(unchecked). Click “Run” to start creating tie points. When the process is completed,

you will get back to the “Point Measurement” window.

 241

Figure B-60. The 21 Ground Control Points for triangulation (Phase III).

STEP 5 Follow Steps 28 through 34 of B.6.

STEP 6 In the “OrthoBASE Pro” main window, click the “DTM Extraction” icon located

second right on the menu bar. The “DTM Extraction” dialog window will open.

STEP 7 Select “Single DTM Mosaic” for “Output Form” and name the output DTM file

(Figure B-61). The “Single DTM Mosaic” option creates a single DTM from all of the

image pairs in the block file, whereas the “Individual DTM Files” option creates

multiple DTMs as individual files. Be sure to create the DTM in the IMAGINE image

file (*.img) format.

STEP 8 Click the “Make Pixels Square” checkbox and type “1” in the “DTM Cell Size X”
 242

(Figure B-61). The “DTM Cell Size Y” field will be updated automatically. It is generally

said that the output cell size for a new DTM should be ten times the ground resolution

of original imagery. Since our photo images have a ground resolution of ca. 0.1 m, it

follows that the recommended cell size is ca. 1 m. Confirm that “Meters” is being

selected for the units.

STEP 9 Type “5” in the “Trim the DTM Border by” field and hit “Enter” key. This

percentage stands for the area that is less accurate and thus is to be trimmed before

the DTM generation process. 2.5% will be removed from each of the four sides of the

overlap between orthophotos 626 and 649. Then, press the “Advanced Properties …”

button (Figure B-61). The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window will open on the

“General” tab.

Figure B-61. The “DTM Extraction” dialog window.

STEP 10 Since the spatial reference information (“Output Projection,” “Spheroid,” “Zone

Number,” and “Datum”) and the unit measurements (“Horizontal Units” and “Vertical

Units”) are inherited from the block file, you do not need to modify them unless you

wish to change them (Figure B-62).

 243

Figure B-62. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“General” tab).

STEP 11 Type “10” in the “Reduce DTM Correlation Area by” text field and hit “Enter”

key. This function is used to get rid of the extraction of erroneous DTM mass points

that may be present at the extreme edges of the input images. The reduction of

correlation area works in the exactly same manner as the trim percentage. 5% will be

removed from each of the four sides of the overlap between orthophotos 626 and 649.

Then, press the “Reduce” button (Figure B-62).

STEP 12 IMAGINE OrthoBASE Pro provides two methods to evaluate the quality of the

resultant DTM: creation of Contour Map(s) and DTM Point Status image(s). The

Contour Map is a three-dimensional shapefile that represents the topographic

variation in the output DTM, while the DTM Point Status image is a raster image that

illustrates the quality associated with the correlated DTM postings, which are to be

categorized as being “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Isolated,” and “Suspicious.” In order

to create the former, click the “Create Contour Map” checkbox and confirm that the

“Contour Interval” field is set to “3.” By default, the contour interval is automatically

computed as being three times the DTM cell size. Then, click the “Remove Contours

Shorter Than” checkbox and type “5” in the text field next to it. By default, this value
 244

is also automatically computed as being five times the DTM cell size. For the DTM

Point Status image to be created, click the “Create DTM Point Status Output Image”

checkbox (Figure B-62).

STEP 13 Click the “Image Pair” tab and hit the “View” icon to open the three views on

top of the “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window : the Block Graphic View, the

Left Image View, and the Right Image View (Figure B-63). The bold black outline in the

Block Graphic View and the highlighted area in the Left and Right Image Views

illustrate the area of overlap between the orthophotos 626 and 649. Confirm that the

image pair listed in the CellArraytable at the bottom of the dialog window is set to be

active with the “Active” column checked by “x.”

Figure B-63. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Image Pair” tab).

STEP 14 Click the “Area Selection” tab and hit the “View” icon to open the three views
 245

on top of the “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window: the Main View, the Over

View, and the Detail View (Figure B-64). In this tab, you digitize some regions of

different topography and land use and classify them into several categories called

“Region Strategies” (e.g., “Rolling Hills,” “High Mountains,” “Forest,” “Low Urban,”

“Flat Areas,” and so forth). The automated DTM extraction will be performed

differently in response to these categories. In this case, you define only one region that

encompasses the Pacific Ocean.

Figure B-64. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Area Selection” tab).

STEP 15 Right-click in the Main View and choose “Zoom Out By X.” In the “Reduction”

dialog that will com up, type “5” and press “Enter” key. Then, hit “OK.” This setting

will change the ratio of reduction scale between the views so that more of the image

pair will be displayed in the Main View compared to the default value of 3%.
 246

STEP 16 Locate the area of interest using the Link Cursor and Link Box in the same

manner as you defined the fiducials and GCPs. Then, click to select the “Create

Polygon Region” icon from the Area Selection tool palette (leftmost in the second row)

and start digitizing (Figure B-65).

Figure B-65. The region to be excluded.

STEP 17 When you finish digitizing, click in the “Region Description” cell in the second

row of the CellArray and type “Pacific Ocean.” Then, click in the “Region Strategy” cell

in the same row and select “Excluded Are” from the pop-up list.

STEP 18 Click the “Accuracy” tab and hit the “View” icon to open the Block Graphic

View on top of the “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window. In this tab, you read

out point data and external DEM with appropriate coordinate information to check

the accuracy of the output DTM. Click the “Show Image ID” checkbox to display in the
 247

Block Graphic View.

STEP 19 Click the “Use Block GCPs” and “Use Block Tie Points” checkboxes. The points

defined and evaluated in the preceding steps (see Steps 23 through 27 of B.6) will be

displayed in the Block Graphic View and listed in the CellArray at the bottom of the

dialog window. Then, click the “Use External DEM” checkbox and locate the file path

and name. The file extent will be illustrated with its name (“gps-elev-cont.img”) in the

Block Graphic View (Figure B-66). Make sure that the “Elevation Units” is being set to

“Meters” and hit “OK.” You will be returned to the “DTM Extraction” dialog window.

Figure B-66. The “DTM Extraction Properties” dialog window (“Accuracy” tab).

STEP 20 Click “Run” in the “DTM Extraction” dialog window to begin DTM extraction

(Figure B-61). You will be returned to the “OrthoBASE Pro” dialog window, which will

track the progress of DTM extraction with its status. Once the process is completed,
 248

the cells in the “DTM” column of the OrthoBASE Pro main window will turn into green

(Figure B-67).

Figure B-67. OrthoBASE Pro main window (DTM extraction completed).

STEP 41 Click the “Ortho Resampling” icon located rightmost on the menu bar of the

OrthoBASE Pro main window to open the “Ortho Resampling” dialog.

STEP 42 Select “DEM” from the “DTM Source” dropdown list and make sure that

“Meters” is being selected for “Vertical Units.” Then, click the “DEM File Name”

dropdown list to select “Find DEM.” Locate the DTM prepared above. Once the DEM

file is appropriately located, the “Output Cell Sized” and the file extent textboxes will

be automatically filled out (Figure B-68).

STEP 43 Hit “Add” to open the “Add Single Output” dialog. Select “649.tif” from the

“Input File Name” and specify the name of the output file in the “Output File Name”

textbox. Then, click the “Use Current Cell Sizes” checkbox and hit “OK” (Figure B-39).

You will get back to the “Ortho Resampling” dialog window.

STEP 44 Confirm that 649.tif in the block file were added to the CellArray in the “Ortho

Resampling” dialog window and click the “Advanced” tab. In the “Advanced” tab, click

the “Resample Method” dropdown list and choose “Bilinear Interpolation.” Then, click

the checkbox next to “Ignore Value” and leave the value of 0 as it is. Click “OK.” The
 249

resampling process will begin and a status dialog window will open, tracking the

process (Figure B-40).

Figure B-68. The “Ortho Resampling” dialog window (Phase III).

STEP 45 When the status dialog reaches 100% complete, hit “OK” to dismiss it. Open

the resultant orthoimages in the Viewer to see if they were successfully processed

(Figure B-69). Then, Save the block file.

 250

Figure B-69. The resultant orthoimages 626 and 649 (Phase III).
 251

APPENDIX C: FIELD DRAWINGS

 252

C-33

C-36 C-29

C-32
C-34

C-35

C-30
C-31

C-28

C-37
C-27
C-25

C-14
C-15

C-22
C-24 C-13
C-21 C-10
C-16 C-26
C-23
C-12

C-20 C-11
C-9
C-19

C-2
C-18

C-17

C-3

C-7
C-4

C-8
C-6

C-5

Figure C-1. The 36 quadrangles of field drawings (Scale = 1:8,500).

8644300

POINT00011

The Painted Temple

8644250

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

Scale = 1:700

293400 293450

253
Figure C-2. The Painted Temple (Scale = 1:700).
8644300
8644250

The Old Temple of Pachacamac

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800

293550 293600

254
Figure C-3. The Old Temple of Pachacamac (Scale = 1:800).
8644200
8644150

Miscellaneous Structure A
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:550

293200

255
Figure C-4. Miscellaneous Structure A (Scale = 1:550 ).
 8643850
8643800
Cemetery A
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

293400 293450

256
Figure C-5. Cemetery A (Scale = 1:500).
8644100

South Entrance to Sector I

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:600

293650 293700

257
Figure C-6. South Entrance to Sector I (Scale = 1:600 ).
8644150

Miscellaneous Structure B
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

293800 293850

258
Figure C-7. Miscellaneous Structure B (Scale = 1:500).
 259

293900 293950

8644200
8644150

Cemetery B

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700

Figure C-8. Cemetery B (Scale = 1:700 ).

8644450

POINT00010
8644400

Miscellaneous Structure C
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800

293700 293750

260
Figure C-9. Miscellaneous Structure C (Scale = 1:800 ).
 293750 293800
8644550

d
a
o
R
rn
e
d
o
M
8644500

Miscellaneous Structure D
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

261
Figure C-10. Miscellaneous Structure D (Scale = 1:500).
 293800 293850 293900
8644450
8644400

Miscellaneous Structure E
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:650

262
Figure C-11. Miscellaneous Structure E or Eeckhout's "B14" (Scale = 1:650).
8644500

POINT00022
8644450

Miscellaneous Structure F
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:650

293950 294000

263
Figure C-12. Miscellaneous Structure F or Eeckhout's "B13" (Scale = 1:650).
 264

293850 293900

8644550
8644500
8644450

Miscellaneous Structure G

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:600

Figure C-13. Miscellaneous Structure G or Eeckhout's "B12" (Scale = 1:600).

 ad
o
R
n
er
d
o
M

8644600
Miscellaneous Structure H
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

293850 293900

265
Figure C-14. Miscellaneous Structure H or Eeckhout's "B11" (Scale = 1:500).
 Miscellaneous Structure I

8644650
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

8644600
293950 294000

266
Figure C-15. Miscellaneous Structure I or Eeckhout's "B10" (Scale = 1:500).
 267

293050 293100

8644450
Pukio A and Miscellaneous Structure J

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700

8644400
8644350

Figure C-16. Pukio A and Miscellaneous Structure J (Scale = 1:700).

8644300

Miscellaneous Structure K
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South
8644250

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700

293050 293100

268
Figure C-17. Miscellaneous Structure K (Scale = 1:700).
 269

8644350
South Entrance to the Pilgrims' Plaza

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:400

8644300
oa d
n R
d er
Mo

293250 293300

Figure C-18. South Entrance to the Pilgrims' Plaza (Scale = 1:400).

 293350 293400 293450
8644400

d
oa
R
e rn
od
M

"Ushnu"
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South
8644350

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:600

270
Figure C-19. "Ushnu" (Scale = 1:600).
 293100 293150 293200 293250 293300

8644450
M
od
er
n
R
oa
d

8644400
Intensively Looted

The Pilgrims' Plaza

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:950

271
Figure C-20. The Pilgrims' Plaza (Scale = 1:950).
 ee t
St r
e rn
W est
r n-
ste
Ea
8644500

M
o
d
e
rn
R
o
a
d
8644450

Miscellaneous Structure L (West)

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700

293250 293300

272
Figure C-21. Miscellaneous Structure L (West) (Scale = 1:700 ).
 et
re
St
rn
te
es
W
n-
er
st
8644550

Ea
8644500

Miscellaneous Structure L (East)

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700

293350 293400

273
Figure C-22. Miscellaneous Structure L (East) (Scale = 1:700).
 274

293450

8644500

POINT00002
8644450
8644400

The Pyramid With Ramp XIII

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:552

Figure C-23. The Pyramid With Ramp XIII (Scale = 1:552).

8644550

The Pyramid With Ramp XII

Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:600

293450 293500

275
Figure C-24. The Pyramid With Ramp XII (Scale = 1:600).
 276

293400 293450

8644700
8644650

N
or
th
er
n
-S
o
u
th
er
n
S
tr
ee

et
t

re
St
rn
te
es
W
n-
er
8644600

st
Ea

Miscellaneous Structure M

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:550

Figure C-25. Miscellaneous Structure M (Scale = 1:550).

 277

293600 293650

8644600
8644550
8644500

ad
Ro
r n
o de
M

Miscellaneous Structure N

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800

Figure C-26. Miscellaneous Structure N or Eeckhout's "B3" (Scale = 1:800).

8644700

et
re
St
rn
te
es
W
n-
er
st
Ea
8644650

Miscellaneous Structure O
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:700
293600 293650

278
Figure C-27. Miscellaneous Structure O (Scale = 1:700).
 279

The House of the Quipus

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:600
8644800
8644750

ad
Ro
n
er
od
M

POINT00017

293900 293950

Figure C-28. The House of the Quipus (Scale = 1:600).

 280

The Palace of Tauri Chumpi

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800

8645000
POINT00016

8644950
8644900

293950 294000 294050

Figure C-29. The Palace of Tauri Chumpi (Scale = 1:800).

 293850 293900 293950
8644950
8644900

Miscellaneous Structure P
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:600

281
Figure C-30. Miscellaneous Structure P (Scale = 1:600).
 293750 293800 293850
8644900

M
o
d
e
rn
R
o
a
d

Miscellaneous Structure Q
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

282
Figure C-31. Miscellaneous Structure Q (Scale = 1:500).
 293800 293850
8645000
8644950

Miscellaneous Structure R
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

283
Figure C-32. Miscellaneous Structure R (Scale = 1:500).
8645100

293600 293650 293700

8645050

ad
Ro
n
d er
Mo

Miscellaneous Structure S
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:600

284
Figure C-33. Miscellaneous Structure S (Scale = 1:600).
 293600 293650
8645000

d
a
o
R
rn
e
d
o
M

Pukio B
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:600

285
Figure C-34. Pukio B (Scale = 1:600).
 293550 293600

d
a
o
R
rn
e
d
o
M
8644950

Miscellaneous Structure T
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:600

286
Figure C-35. Miscellaneous Structure T (Scale = 1:600).
 287

Miscellaneous Structure U

8645050 Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500
8645000

293450 293500

Figure C-36. Miscellaneous Structure U (Scale = 1:500).

 293300 293350

d
oa
R
e rn
od
M
8644750

Pukio C
8644700

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 2.5 5 10
Meters Scale = 1:500

288
Figure C-37. Pukio C (Scale = 1:500).
 289

APPENDIX D: DIGITIZED MAPS

 290

D-16

D-13

D-11

D-14
D-7
D-8

D-15

D-6 D-10
D-12
D-17

D-18
D-9

D-5

D-19

D-2

D-3

D-4

Figure D-1. The 18 quadrangles of digitized maps (Scale = 1:8,500).

 T he Paint ed T emple
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:750

Int e nsiv e ly Loot e d Area

8644300

POI NT 00011

5
4
8644250

0
5
293400 293450

291
Figure D-2. T he Paint ed T emple (Scale = 1:750 ).
 Int ensiv ely Loot ed

35

8644300
4
5

50

8644200
T he Old T emple of Pachacam ac
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h
5
5
0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:1,200

0
4

0
293550 293650

292
Figure D-3. T he Old T emple of Pachacam ac (Scale = 1:1,200 ).
 293300 293500
5
5

0
5
8644100

65
60

5
8

4
5
POI NT 00012
8644000

75

POI NT 00013

8
0

T he T emple of t he Sun
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 10 20 40 0
4
Met ers Sc ale =1:1,500
5
3

293
Figure D-4. T he T em ple of t he Sun (Scale = 1:1,500 ).
 T he Pilgrims' Plaz a and Pukio I
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 10 20 40

Met ers Sc ale = 1:2,200

10

15
8644400

Int ensiv ely Loot ed

Int ensiv ely Loot ed

5
2
8644300

5
4
0
3
293100 293200 293300 293400 293500 50

294
Figure D-5. T he Pilgrims' Plaz a and Pukio I (Scale = 1:2,200 ).
 292900 293000

2
0

8644700
1
5

8644650
POI NT 00014
T he Conv ent o f Mam acona
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:900

295
Figure D-6. T he Conv ent of Mamacona (Scale = 1:900 ).
 296

The Palace of Tauri Chumpi

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800

8645000
POINT00016

30

8644900
4
0

294000

Figure D-7. Palace of Tauri Chumpi (Scale = 1:800).

 293600 293700

T he T emple of t he Monkey
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:800

d
oa
R
d ay
n-
er
od
M
8644850

5
4
8644800

35

55

297
Figure D-8. T he T em ple of t he Monkey (Scale = 1:800 ).
 298

The Pyramid With Ramp I

ad
Ro
Provisional South American Datum 1956

ay
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

-d
0 5 10 20

rn
Meters Scale = 1:801

de
Mo
8644700

N
or
th
er
n
-S
ou
th
er
n
S
tr
ee
t
POINT00020
8644600

et
re
St
n
t er
es
- W
e rn
st
Ea

293350 293400

Figure D-9. The Pyramid With Ramp I (Scale = 1:801).

 40

T he Py ramid Wi t h Ramp II
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h
POI NT 00019

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:800

35
8644700

et
re
St
n
t er
es
n -W
er
st
Ea
8644650

293500 293600

299
Figure D-10. T he Py ram id Wit h Ram p II (Scale = 1:800 ).
 300

The Pyramid With Ramp III

4
0
Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:900

Intensively Looted Area

M
o
d
e
rn
-d
a
y
R
o

8644900
a
d
45

8644800

55

POINT00023

293700 293750

Figure D-11. The Pyramid With Ramp III (Scale = 1:900).

 293200 293250

T he Py ramid Wi t h Ramp IV and Pukio II

Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale =1:800

d
oa
R
ay
-d
n
er
od
M
8644750
8644700

2
0

301
Figure D-12. T he Py ram id Wit h Ram p IV and Pukio II (Scale = 1:800 ).
 The Pyramid With Ramp V and VIII
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale =1:800

d
R oa
d ay
de r n-
Mo
8645000
8644950

293300 293400

302
Figure D-13. The Pyramid With Ramp V and VIII (Scale = 1:800 ).
 293400 293500

5
2
8644950

POI NT 00024

ad
Ro
y
da
n-
er
od
M
8644900

T he Py ramid Wi t h Ramp VI
Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:900

303
Figure D-14. T he Py ram id Wit h Ram p VI (Scale = 1:900 ).
 304

8644900
ad
Ro
ay
n -d
d er
Mo
N
or

8644800
th
en
-S
ou
th
er
n
St

d
oa
R
re

ay
et

-d
e rn
od
M

The Pyramid With Ramp VII

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:1,000

293350 293400

Figure D-15. The Pyramid With Ramp VII (Scale = 1:1,000 ).

 305

294000

o ad
y R
da
r n-
de
Mo

8645000
8644900

35
T he Py ramid Wi t h Ramp IX

Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956

Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:600

Figure D-16. T he Py ram id Wit h Ram p IX (Scale = 1:600 ).

 293800 293900

50
8644750

POI NT 00017

Ro ad
Mo de rn-day
8644700

40

T he Py ramid Wi t h Ramp XI, XIV,

and t he Ho use of t he Quipus

Prov isional Sout h American Dat um 1956
Int e nsiv e ly Loot e d Univ ersal T ransv erse Mercat or Zone 18 Sout h

0 5 10 20

Met ers Sc ale = 1:900

306
Figure D-17. T he Py ram id Wit h Ram p XI, XIV, and t he House of t he Qui pus (Scale = 1:900 ).
 The Pyramid With Ramp XII
Provisional South American Datum 1956
Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

0 5 10 20
Meters Scale = 1:800
e et
Intensively Looted S tr
rn
te
es
-W
rn
s te
Ea

8644600
Intensively Looted

8644550
293450 293550

307
Figure D-18. The Pyramid With Ramp XII (Scale = 1:800 ).
 308

8644500
POINT00002

8644450

The Pyramid With Ramp XIII

Provisional South American Datum 1956

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 South

ad
0 5 10 20 o
R
Meters Scale = 1:650 ay
-d
n
er
d
o
M

293450

Figure D-19. The Pyramid With Ramp XIII (Scale = 1:650).

 309

APPENDIX E: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

E.1. Triangulation Report (Phase I)

The Triangulation Report With OrthoBASE

The output image x, y units: pixels

The output angle unit: degrees
The output ground X, Y, Z units: meters

The Input Image Coordinates

image ID = 1
Point ID x y
1 16748.997 4790.024
3 20124.980 4118.995
4 16514.001 7459.998
6 22416.009 10511.977
7 20343.005 14036.006
8 16138.995 15931.998
10 7286.978 6876.992
11 17011.906 4425.255
12 19906.066 5789.936
13 20229.320 8201.934
14 16000.814 8271.001
15 16573.234 8462.563
16 16772.355 8553.924
17 13268.749 9741.052
18 13836.166 10397.409
19 13400.384 10555.490
20 13734.775 10753.928
21 14491.254 14180.944
22 21839.342 16293.611
23 19448.443 17436.635
24 15062.529 19273.236
25 20836.641 21008.219

Affine coefficients from file (pixels) to film (millimeters)

A0 A1 A2 B0 B1 B2
117.2375 -0.010009 -0.000055 -116.3554 -0.000054 0.010003

image ID = 2
Point ID x y
1 5220.007 5267.996
2 15421.026 3080.008
3 8546.994 4798.008
4 4977.027 7862.012
5 12240.004 7553.998
6 10471.021 11037.987
7 7920.003 14477.998
8 4122.029 16401.007
9 20188.999 15799.010
11 5494.698 4932.635
12 8291.935 6383.337
 310

13 8489.618 8724.391
14 4443.904 8643.435
15 5011.525 8854.679
16 5211.104 8949.765
17 1607.564 10013.796
18 2150.255 10689.420
19 1694.414 10837.195
20 2023.980 11047.403
21 2608.031 14553.642
22 9873.458 16786.416
23 7504.502 17946.842
24 2916.087 19874.309
25 8765.172 21640.781

Affine coefficients from file (pixels) to film (millimeters)

A0 A1 A2 B0 B1 B2
-130.9891 0.010010 0.000059 116.2636 0.000059 -0.010007

THE OUTPUT OF SELF-CALIBRATING BUNDLE BLOCK ADJUSTMENT

the no. of iteration =1 the standard error = 2.6427

the maximal correction of the object points = 6.40827

the no. of iteration =2 the standard error = 2.7828

the maximal correction of the object points = 1.49397

the no. of iteration =3 the standard error = 2.7828

the maximal correction of the object points = 0.01529

the no. of iteration =4 the standard error = 2.7828

the maximal correction of the object points = 0.00030

The exterior orientation parameters

image ID Xs Ys Zs OMEGA PHI KAPPA
1 292528.9148 8644297.6213 1596.6391 0.8628 2.2114 174.3117
2 293767.4164 8644169.0723 1586.3949 3.0996 -1.5205 -4.3046

The interior orientation parameters of photos

image ID f(mm) xo(mm) yo(mm)
1 152.6700 0.0000 0.0000
2 152.6700 0.0000 0.0000

The residuals of the control points

Point ID rX rY rZ
1 -1.4708 0.9663 -0.2459
2 3.9289 5.3663 4.2818
3 -0.4955 0.7518 0.7092
4 -3.5780 1.6884 -3.8498
5 1.7816 -1.2814 -0.4370
6 -0.6518 -3.4619 -1.3658
7 2.7899 -1.6466 2.0674
8 -1.3957 -4.1972 4.3773
9 -6.4992 2.3582 -3.6729
10 5.5906 -0.5439 -1.8643

aX aY aZ
 311

-0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000

mX mY mZ
3.4274 2.7011 2.7600

The coordinates of object points

Point ID X Y Z Overlap
1 293051.5598 8644972.4173 31.7541 2
2 294128.7594 8645150.9214 24.2818 1
3 293394.5844 8645003.8730 28.7092 2
4 293006.9766 8644708.0208 14.1502 2
5 293758.7880 8644684.5498 39.5630 1
6 293553.9690 8644338.2627 28.6342 2
7 293292.6666 8644014.2919 76.0674 2
8 292885.4603 8643845.4876 12.3773 2
9 294518.1218 8643780.1414 8.3271 1
10 292054.7971 8644872.5169 7.1357 1
11 293081.3050 8645006.2817 32.1176 2
12 293358.2022 8644838.6247 24.8520 2
13 293365.4081 8644591.3505 25.4998 2
14 292947.7622 8644630.7250 11.0467 2
15 293004.1820 8644605.2241 10.0084 2
16 293023.7038 8644594.0601 9.1522 2
17 292654.2076 8644507.7783 8.5050 2
18 292706.2288 8644434.3745 7.8826 2
19 292659.8520 8644422.3628 7.7169 2
20 292692.3093 8644398.5090 7.7583 2
21 292736.7272 8644038.2190 3.9498 2
22 293454.3106 8643760.2812 3.6752 2
23 293208.2300 8643661.7377 -2.4516 2
24 292745.8597 8643509.2676 -1.6755 2
25 293313.2356 8643287.4333 -7.7659 2
The total object points = 25

The residuals of image points

Point Image Vx Vy
1 1 0.017 -0.661
1 2 -0.034 0.692

Point Image Vx Vy
2 2 -0.042 0.068

Point Image Vx Vy
3 1 -0.002 0.111
3 2 0.014 -0.108

Point Image Vx Vy
4 1 0.086 -0.085
4 2 -0.049 0.099

Point Image Vx Vy
5 2 -0.021 -0.013

Point Image Vx Vy
6 1 0.031 -2.157
6 2 -0.090 2.165

Point Image Vx Vy
 312

7 1 -0.027 -0.558
7 2 -0.011 0.540

Point Image Vx Vy
8 1 -0.199 9.528
8 2 0.266 -9.247

Point Image Vx Vy
9 2 0.076 0.019

Point Image Vx Vy
10 1 -0.066 -0.000

Point Image Vx Vy
11 1 0.004 0.828
11 2 0.040 -0.858

Point Image Vx Vy
12 1 0.000 0.175
12 2 0.008 -0.182

Point Image Vx Vy
13 1 -0.000 0.142
13 2 0.006 -0.146

Point Image Vx Vy
14 1 -0.002 0.969
14 2 0.039 -0.979

Point Image Vx Vy
15 1 -0.004 1.432
15 2 0.057 -1.447

Point Image Vx Vy
16 1 -0.001 0.212
16 2 0.008 -0.214

Point Image Vx Vy
17 1 -0.002 0.281
17 2 0.010 -0.279

Point Image Vx Vy
18 1 0.010 -1.366
18 2 -0.049 1.351

Point Image Vx Vy
19 1 0.007 -0.956
19 2 -0.034 0.943

Point Image Vx Vy
20 1 0.007 -0.912
20 2 -0.032 0.899

Point Image Vx Vy
21 1 0.059 -3.800
21 2 -0.107 3.684

Point Image Vx Vy
 313

22 1 0.001 -0.076
22 2 -0.002 0.075

Point Image Vx Vy
23 1 0.007 -0.311
23 2 -0.007 0.302

Point Image Vx Vy
24 1 0.063 -2.465
24 2 -0.044 2.324

Point Image Vx Vy
25 1 0.010 -0.344
25 2 -0.005 0.329

The image residuals of the control points

The image ID = 1
Point ID Vx Vy
1 0.017 -0.661
3 -0.002 0.111
4 0.086 -0.085
6 0.031 -2.157
7 -0.027 -0.558
8 -0.199 9.528
10 -0.066 -0.000
RMSE of 7 points: mx=0.087, my=3.707

The image ID = 2
Point ID Vx Vy
1 -0.034 0.692
2 -0.042 0.068
3 0.014 -0.108
4 -0.049 0.099
5 -0.021 -0.013
6 -0.090 2.165
7 -0.011 0.540
8 0.266 -9.247
9 0.076 0.019
RMSE of 9 points: mx=0.100, my=3.179

E.2. Triangulation Report (Phase III)

The Triangulation Report With OrthoBASE

The output image x, y units: pixels

The output angle unit: degrees
The output ground X, Y, Z units: meters

The Input Image Coordinates

image ID = 1
Point ID x y
1 20442.018 10241.030
2 21258.977 9372.952
 314

3 20284.998 9387.985
4 19766.990 10695.000
5 18812.000 10464.972
6 18763.009 9041.970
7 21947.992 8304.990
11 21763.983 11025.982
13 21286.990 14339.975
14 16252.992 8263.954
15 22760.992 3275.996
19 22744.976 6549.958
20 20118.992 7756.033
21 18500.994 7261.970
24 20587.998 4733.014
25 17011.906 4425.255
26 19906.066 5789.936
27 20229.320 8201.934
28 16000.814 8271.001
29 16573.234 8462.563
30 16772.355 8553.924
31 13268.749 9741.052
32 13836.166 10397.409
33 13400.384 10555.490
34 13734.775 10753.928
35 14825.329 12097.276
36 16854.451 12449.760
37 14282.445 12601.379
38 14383.936 12864.513
39 15379.454 13319.292
40 14491.254 14180.944
41 15506.836 14670.696
42 21839.342 16293.611
43 19448.443 17436.635
44 15059.140 18374.217
45 21757.576 19451.395
46 22532.717 19784.490
47 22544.568 20136.434
48 18932.854 20142.123
49 22880.701 20622.215
50 18681.000 20890.916
51 16390.537 20973.570
52 20836.641 21008.219
53 19033.758 22232.594

Affine coefficients from file (pixels) to film (millimeters)

A0 A1 A2 B0 B1 B2
117.2375 -0.010009 -0.000055 -116.3554 -0.000054 0.010003

image ID = 2
Point ID x y
1 8628.982 10721.022
2 9421.986 9896.005
3 8492.982 9881.007
4 7947.015 11150.994
5 7027.977 10896.982
6 7052.210 9491.956
7 10132.009 8888.991
8 11525.012 8741.997
9 12207.083 9874.494
 315

11 9746.991 11527.982
13 8802.977 14800.970
14 4707.990 8645.987
15 11079.016 4134.988
16 14691.997 4715.993
17 13650.989 7049.011
19 10848.989 7223.995
20 8358.998 8282.002
21 6872.982 7747.986
22 14882.009 9384.994
23 11867.993 6546.972
24 8979.006 5403.983
25 5494.698 4932.635
26 8291.935 6383.337
27 8489.618 8724.391
28 4443.904 8643.435
29 5011.525 8854.679
30 5211.104 8949.765
31 1607.564 10013.796
32 2150.255 10689.420
33 1694.414 10837.195
34 2023.980 11047.403
35 3065.951 12438.345
36 5077.089 12837.706
37 2484.054 12934.721
38 2569.309 13207.759
39 3564.049 13686.788
40 2608.031 14553.642
41 3623.908 15076.647
42 9873.458 16786.416
43 7504.502 17946.842
44 2966.759 18924.549
45 9734.684 20016.545
46 10492.582 20352.441
47 10495.005 20716.361
48 6869.727 20757.453
49 10810.987 21213.197
50 6581.240 21542.969
51 4201.601 21664.146
52 8765.172 21640.781
53 6867.464 22959.904

Affine coefficients from file (pixels) to film (millimeters)

A0 A1 A2 B0 B1 B2
-130.9891 0.010010 0.000059 116.2636 0.000059 -0.010007

THE OUTPUT OF SELF-CALIBRATING BUNDLE BLOCK ADJUSTMENT

the no. of iteration =1 the standard error = 1.2428

the maximal correction of the object points = 25.13078

the no. of iteration =2 the standard error = 1.0823

the maximal correction of the object points = 20.64444

the no. of iteration =3 the standard error = 1.0874

the maximal correction of the object points = 0.26716
 316

the no. of iteration =4 the standard error = 1.0874

the maximal correction of the object points = 0.00077

The exterior orientation parameters

image ID Xs Ys Zs OMEGA PHI KAPPA
1 292529.1880 8644310.7551 1596.9849 0.4654 1.9103 174.2388
2 293765.5117 8644181.4972 1593.2947 2.6974 -1.7102 -4.3573

The interior orientation parameters of photos

image ID f(mm) xo(mm) yo(mm)
1 152.6693 0.0000 0.0173
2 152.6693 0.0000 0.0173

The residuals of the control points

Point ID rX rY rZ
1 -0.0958 -0.9264 -1.1888
2 0.2540 -0.4440 -0.9803
3 0.1155 -0.6207 0.3308
4 -0.0727 -0.2220 -1.1615
5 -0.1858 -0.4982 -1.2655
6 0.3085 -0.3619 0.5370
7 -1.3439 3.8548 10.2575
8 0.1604 4.1639 1.0274
9 -1.6274 3.1226 0.5569
11 0.4175 -0.7664 -1.1417
13 -0.0876 -1.0229 -1.0281
14 0.4782 -0.3724 0.7440
15 0.1710 -0.0376 -1.2963
16 0.2509 -1.0548 -0.4922
17 0.2646 -1.1399 -0.3781
19 0.0558 -0.1668 -2.2175
20 0.1980 -0.3646 -0.3640
21 0.1518 -0.3648 -0.0755
22 -0.0867 -1.1212 -0.2288
23 0.3329 -1.4995 -0.5994
24 0.3411 -0.1574 -1.0359

aX aY aZ
-0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000
mX mY mZ
0.5153 1.5710 2.4283

The coordinates of object points

Point ID X Y Z Overlap
1 293372.6124 8644385.2788 33.0984 2
2 293458.7686 8644463.7294 37.3661 2
3 293364.3660 8644472.0033 35.2794 2
4 293301.4940 8644346.1966 33.4902 2
5 293210.0229 8644378.6089 32.0874 2
6 293219.6239 8644522.5196 30.9625 2
7 293537.1408 8644563.2793 36.2546 2
8 293680.1352 8644570.6582 29.4648 1
9 293742.3591 8644447.8784 32.0080 1
11 293483.8902 8644294.0632 50.2402 2
13 293381.5341 8643980.5083 92.6636 2
14 292980.8330 8644629.3429 17.1454 2
15 293666.4684 8645057.4993 35.3590 2
 317

16 294037.1232 8644965.6279 51.2633 1

17 293910.6732 8644725.8257 53.7653 1
19 293622.7159 8644726.9435 49.4093 2
20 293361.4386 8644636.2776 40.1988 2
21 293210.9979 8644704.4269 31.1506 2
22 294020.4194 8644478.2306 42.6888 1
23 293731.9715 8644783.9040 67.6410 1
24 293440.6400 8644935.9744 33.9025 2
25 293088.2172 8645004.8416 37.5248 2
26 293363.8527 8644837.5555 32.5596 2
27 293370.7363 8644591.3634 34.8790 2
28 292954.8387 8644630.9432 18.6086 2
29 293011.0025 8644605.4897 17.9370 2
30 293030.4361 8644594.3478 17.2287 2
31 292662.4252 8644508.8191 16.0546 2
32 292714.1073 8644435.6995 16.0465 2
33 292667.9312 8644423.7897 15.8450 2
34 292700.2045 8644400.0119 16.1227 2
35 292798.3756 8644251.3332 15.6936 2
36 292999.5233 8644196.2744 19.6200 2
37 292738.1372 8644205.0545 15.1289 2
38 292745.8362 8644177.0036 15.5642 2
39 292842.7546 8644121.2913 15.6376 2
40 292743.9586 8644041.2467 14.8176 2
41 292842.4936 8643981.6392 14.9441 2
42 293458.4018 8643763.5439 19.1553 2
43 293213.1603 8643665.6287 12.5808 2
44 292760.8939 8643606.3298 12.5884 2
45 293423.4357 8643443.2939 11.5981 2
46 293496.9673 8643403.7519 11.2630 2
47 293494.8864 8643368.0113 10.8632 2
48 293135.2704 8643395.1959 11.4557 2
49 293523.2946 8643316.7255 10.7705 2
50 293102.7900 8643321.2137 11.0556 2
51 292870.5049 8643331.0304 12.9361 2
52 293317.3522 8643292.6451 10.2484 2
53 293124.3945 8643183.5217 12.3917 2
The total object points = 50

The residuals of image points

Point Image Vx Vy
1 1 0.023 -1.257
1 2 -0.060 1.266

Point Image Vx Vy
2 1 0.015 -0.733
2 2 -0.043 0.745

Point Image Vx Vy
3 1 -0.005 -0.423
3 2 -0.011 0.425

Point Image Vx Vy
4 1 0.018 -0.368
4 2 -0.028 0.369

Point Image Vx Vy
 318

5 1 0.021 -0.631
5 2 -0.038 0.630

Point Image Vx Vy
6 1 -0.005 -1.208
6 2 -0.040 1.224

Point Image Vx Vy
7 1 -0.126 2.320
7 2 0.237 -2.349

Point Image Vx Vy
8 2 0.001 0.047

Point Image Vx Vy
9 2 0.021 0.034

Point Image Vx Vy
11 1 0.005 1.066
11 2 0.018 -1.091

Point Image Vx Vy
13 1 -0.015 2.139
13 2 0.044 -2.138

Point Image Vx Vy
14 1 -0.017 0.659
14 2 0.036 -0.670

Point Image Vx Vy
15 1 0.010 -0.941
15 2 -0.068 1.002

Point Image Vx Vy
16 2 -0.004 -0.012

Point Image Vx Vy
17 2 -0.004 -0.013

Point Image Vx Vy
19 1 0.027 -0.796
19 2 -0.066 0.830

Point Image Vx Vy
20 1 0.005 -1.555
20 2 -0.070 1.596

Point Image Vx Vy
21 1 -0.001 1.290
21 2 0.053 -1.327

Point Image Vx Vy
22 2 0.000 -0.013

Point Image Vx Vy
23 2 -0.005 -0.017

Point Image Vx Vy
 319

24 1 0.013 0.126
24 2 -0.010 -0.134

Point Image Vx Vy
25 1 0.001 0.249
25 2 0.012 -0.258

Point Image Vx Vy
26 1 0.001 0.479
26 2 0.022 -0.498

Point Image Vx Vy
27 1 -0.001 0.357
27 2 0.014 -0.366

Point Image Vx Vy
28 1 -0.002 0.788
28 2 0.031 -0.796

Point Image Vx Vy
29 1 -0.003 1.344
29 2 0.052 -1.359

Point Image Vx Vy
30 1 -0.000 0.159
30 2 0.006 -0.161

Point Image Vx Vy
31 1 -0.002 0.396
31 2 0.014 -0.392

Point Image Vx Vy
32 1 0.007 -1.003
32 2 -0.035 0.992

Point Image Vx Vy
33 1 0.004 -0.513
33 2 -0.018 0.506

Point Image Vx Vy
34 1 0.003 -0.407
34 2 -0.014 0.402

Point Image Vx Vy
35 1 -0.011 1.173
35 2 0.037 -1.154

Point Image Vx Vy
36 1 -0.008 0.790
36 2 0.025 -0.781

Point Image Vx Vy
37 1 0.012 -1.049
37 2 -0.032 1.026

Point Image Vx Vy
38 1 -0.003 0.291
38 2 0.009 -0.285
 320

Point Image Vx Vy
39 1 0.020 -1.569
39 2 -0.046 1.536

Point Image Vx Vy
40 1 0.030 -2.068
40 2 -0.058 2.007

Point Image Vx Vy
41 1 -0.012 0.835
41 2 0.022 -0.811

Point Image Vx Vy
42 1 0.009 -0.511
42 2 -0.012 0.504

Point Image Vx Vy
43 1 -0.007 0.335
43 2 0.007 -0.326

Point Image Vx Vy
44 1 -0.012 0.553
44 2 0.011 -0.524

Point Image Vx Vy
45 1 -0.010 0.414
45 2 0.008 -0.401

Point Image Vx Vy
46 1 0.015 -0.593
46 2 -0.011 0.575

Point Image Vx Vy
47 1 0.004 -0.136
47 2 -0.002 0.132

Point Image Vx Vy
48 1 -0.014 0.541
48 2 0.009 -0.516

Point Image Vx Vy
49 1 0.027 -1.018
49 2 -0.017 0.983

Point Image Vx Vy
50 1 0.037 -1.325
50 2 -0.020 1.257

Point Image Vx Vy
51 1 -0.023 0.818
51 2 0.012 -0.768

Point Image Vx Vy
52 1 0.006 -0.205
52 2 -0.003 0.196

Point Image Vx Vy
 321

53 1 -0.033 1.094
53 2 0.014 -1.031

The image residuals of the control points

The image ID = 1
Point ID Vx Vy
1 0.023 -1.257
2 0.015 -0.733
3 -0.005 -0.423
4 0.018 -0.368
5 0.021 -0.631
6 -0.005 -1.208
7 -0.126 2.320
11 0.005 1.066
13 -0.015 2.139
14 -0.017 0.659
15 0.010 -0.941
19 0.027 -0.796
20 0.005 -1.555
21 -0.001 1.290
24 0.013 0.126
RMSE of 15 points: mx=0.036, my=1.195

The image ID = 2
Point ID Vx Vy
1 -0.060 1.266
2 -0.043 0.745
3 -0.011 0.425
4 -0.028 0.369
5 -0.038 0.630
6 -0.040 1.224
7 0.237 -2.349
8 0.001 0.047
9 0.021 0.034
11 0.018 -1.091
13 0.044 -2.138
14 0.036 -0.670
15 -0.068 1.002
16 -0.004 -0.012
17 -0.004 -0.013
19 -0.066 0.830
20 -0.070 1.596
21 0.053 -1.327
22 0.000 -0.013
23 -0.005 -0.017
24 -0.010 -0.134
RMSE of 21 points: mx=0.064, my=1.026
 322

VITA

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University

Go Matsumoto Date of Birth: March 21, 1972

1962 Evergreen Terrace Drive East Apt.#194-3, Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

Bachelor of Arts, English Language, March 1995

Thesis Title:
Pachacamac GIS Project: A Practical Application of Geographic Information Systems
and Remote Sensing Techniques in Andean Archaeology

Major Professor: Dr. Izumi Shimada

Publications:
1994. A Comparative Study of Japanese Case Particles “ni” and “de”: Spatial
Recognition and Identity of Japanese People. In Semantics Vol.3, edited by Misato
Tokunaga, pp.66-98. Kanda University of International Studies, Japan.