Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2023)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-023-09479-0

Predicting Archaeological Sites

FORUM
Locations in Desert Areas, Using
GIS-AHP-GeoTOPSIS Model:
Southwestern Algeria, Bechar
Imen Guechi , Department of Architecture, Laboratory of Evaluation of Quality in
Architecture and In-Built Environment, University of Arbi Ben, M’hidi Oum El
Bouaghie, Algeria
E-mail: guechi.imen@gmail.com

Halima Gherraz, Department of Architecture, Laboratory of Evaluation of Quality in

Architecture and In-Built Environment, University of Arbi Ben M’hidi, Oum El
Bouaghie, Algeria
E-mail: halima.gherraz@gmail.com

Ayoub Korichi, Institute Mohamed Hadjouti Kasr El Boukhari, Medea, Algeria

E-mail: ayoubkori@gmail.com

Djamel Alkama, Department of Architecture, University of , Guelma, Algeria

E-mail: dj.alkama@gmail.com

Accepted: 22 May 2023

ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________

The region of Saoura, bounding in heritage and archaeological potential of

national and universal importance. The paper’s major goal is to contribute
to the literature by providing a hybrid method of GIS-GeoTOPSIS-AHP for
archaeology prediction. The results indicate that 48.48% of the Ksours are
located in areas that had very high potential and 42.42% are located in high
potentiality areas and representing 0.16% and 1.25% of the total area. The
model’s ability to predict site locations with reasonable accuracy is
expressed by the model gain, which is equal to 98%, it is considered a
strong predictive model.
________________________________________________________________

Résumé: La région de Saoura, associant un patrimoine et un potentiel

ARCHAEOLOGIES

archéologique d’une importance nationale et universelle. L’objectif majeur

de l’article est de contribuer aux publications en proposant une méthode
hybride de système d’information géographique (SIG) GeoTOPSIS
(Technique pour l’ordre de préférence par similarité de solution idéale)-AHP
(processus de hiérarchie analytique) pour la prédiction archéologique. Les
résultats indiquent que 48,48% des Ksours se trouvent dans des zones

 2023 World Archaeological Congress

 GUECHI ET AL.

présentant un potentiel très élevé et que 42,42% sont établis dans des
zones de forte potentialité et représentant 0,16% et 1,25% de la zone
totale. La capacité du modèle à prédire les emplacements de sites avec une
exactitude raisonnable est exprimée par le gain du modèle, lequel est égal
à________________________________________________________________
98%. Il est considéré comme un modèle prédictif puissant.
Resumen: La región de Saura, rica en patrimonio y potencial arqueológico
de importancia nacional y universal. El principal objetivo del artı́culo es
contribuir a la literatura al proporcionar un método hı́brido de GIS-
GeoTOPSIS-AHP para la predicción arqueológica. Los resultados indican que
el 48,48% de los Ksours están ubicados en áreas que tenı́an muy alto
potencial y el 42,42% están ubicados en áreas de alto potencial y
representando el 0,16% y 1,25% del área total. La capacidad del modelo
para predecir ubicaciones de sitios con una precisión razonable se expresa
mediante la ganancia del modelo, que es igual al 98%; se considera un
modelo predictivo sólido.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Archaeological sites, Prediction, AHP-GeoTOPSIS, GIS

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Using archaeological predictive modeling, one may determine how likely it

is that archaeological sites will be found in a certain place. Also these mod-
els are employed to aid planners in avoiding locations where historics sites
are expected to exist, which makes them a crucial tool for the protection
of archaeological sites (Kvamme 2005; Warren et al. 2000; Mehrer et al.
2005). The underlying premise of archaeological prediction models is that
the distribution of prehistoric sites is not random but rather reflects
human decisions and is affected by environmental factors, such as weather
and the availability of natural resources. Another assumption is that the
environmental factors of the ancient locations are still visible in the terrain
and can be assessed and quantified using current maps, satellite pictures,
and other geographic sources (Kvamme 2005; Warren and Asch 2000).
Willey created the concept of archaeological site prediction in the Viru
Valley (Willey 1953). With the development of GIS technology, archaeolog-
ical practice changed. Brandt and Kvamme later improved and expanded
the method to include North America, South America, the Netherlands,
and other regions (Brandt et al. 1992). Numerous other criteria, including
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

the geographic setting, affect the prediction of archaeological sites. Using

multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), Hannah Parow-Souchon investi-
gated potential Paleolithic sites with a high likelihood of existing in the
eastern Mediterranean and arid margins by choosing parameters, like slope
orientation (base), elevation, geomorphology, hydrogeology, drainage net-
work, slope, and vegetation (Parow-Souchon et al. 2022). Sukumar Hazra
used factors such slope, slope direction, curvature, distance from water
bodies, soil, distance from current towns, geology, and elevation to analyze
the potential of archaeological sites in the middle and lower portions of
the Mayurakshi River basin (Hazra 2020). By investigating and evaluating
the dynamic relationship between archaeological sites and their environ-
ment, archaeological site prediction modeling predicts the likelihood of
discovering new sites in an area (Linzhi et al. 2022).
The word ‘‘GIS’’ (geographic information system) was first used in the
field of archaeology more than 40 years ago (Hasenstab 1983), and it is dif-
ficult to think of how archaeologists conducted research before that time.
Most archaeologists today view geographic information systems (GIS) and
spatial analysis as crucial tools for exploring, analyzing, and interpreting
geographical data, and they are already common components in many
archaeological research projects. So for doing ‘conventional’ archaeological
research more effectively, (GIS), and spatial analysis are very practical tools
(Verhagen 2018). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sens-
ing have opened up new avenues and opportunities for archaeology during
the past ten years (Rawlands et al. 2007; Haidar-Boustani et al. 2004; Siart
et al. 2008), whereas Archaeological study has gained fresh insight, particu-
larly with widespread use of a new technologies and software’s evolution
(Lock et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1990). Archaeology management can benefit
from high-resolution satellite photos (Pappu et al. 2010). Therefore, via the
development of GIS-based models, remote sensing data have become a
standard tool for, prediction of, and forecast of the locations of archaeo-
logical sites. However, in the SAHARA desert, these methods have not ever
been applied (Roeloffs et al. 2011; Belmonte et al. 1999; Linstadter et al.
2013).
In the Maghreb regions, particularly Algeria, archaeological surveys still
frequently employ traditional techniques, like field inventories, where local
population testimonies play a crucial role in localizing archaeological sites
(Gherraz et al. 2022; Galan et al. 2014; Di Lernia 2013). These field studies
take a lot of time since teams of several persons are required to cover
broad areas primarily on foot. This method is particularly challenging in
desert area (Linstadter et al. 2013). One of the largest and harshest deserts
in the world, the desert of the Maghreb regions (SAHARA desert) spans
more than 1500 km2 from North to South and 1200 km from East to
West. It is located on 8.5 million square kilometers, all of which are arid,
 GUECHI ET AL.

with the exception of 200 thousand kilometers, or about 3% of the planet’s

surface, that are considered urban areas (Ahriz et al. 2017). Algeria has
many inaccessible, distant places, making it difficult to find ancient sites
there.
In order to manage cultural resources effectively, techniques for predict-
ing the locations of historic sites have been developed over the past few
decades as useful tools based on the knowledge of experts and the develop-
ment of software. In order to predict where else within a region with speci-
fic geographical characteristics, phenomena of inhabitance with similar
features may have occurred knowledge from already known historic sites is
used as the basis. This assumption is based on the idea that the choice of a
site’s location can be explained by the presence of certain environmental
parameters (Hatzinikolaou et al. 2003; Mink et al. 2009; Nsanziyera et al.
2018a, b; Oyarzun 2016; Nsanziyera et al. 2018a, b).
Intriguing techniques, such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
and Neural Networks, have made their way into the area of predictive
modeling (Krist 2001). According to (Tarraguel et al. 2012; Cerreta et al.
2010), some authors recommended integrating MCDA techniques with
integrated spatial assessments. Hamadouche et al. (2014) integrated them
to determine the sites in an Algerian archaeological site that require urgent
conservation. In order to identify areas in the Awserd region of southern
Morocco that are very likely to have archaeological sites, Félix used satellite
imagery and a digital elevation model to build an archaeological predictive
model through a variety of techniques (spatial analysis, statistical tech-
niques, and fuzzy logic) (Nsanziyera et al. 2018a, b). By picking Multi-Cri-
teria Decision Analysis (MDCA) methods, Hannah Parow-Souchon
investigated probable Paleolithic sites with a high possibility of existing in
the eastern Mediterranean and desert borders (Parow-Souchon et al. 2021).
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), also known as Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making (MCDM), refers to approaches for analyzing a collection
of criteria and presenting decision-makers with the priority, or weights, of
these criteria (Zopounidis et al. 2010). More than 80% of studies in this
field have employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine
the weights of criteria (Lu et al. 2007). Saaty’s (1980, 2008) Analytic Hier-
archy Process (AHP) method is a well-known multi-criteria technique that
is implemented into GIS-based techniques for assessing appropriateness
(Laskar 2003, Pareta et al. 1992; Parry et al. 2018).
The choice of an effective Multiple Attribute Decision-Making (MCDM)
strategy for a particular MCDM situation is never easy (Yeh 2002). Studies
(Chakraborty et al. 2007; Chakraborty et al. 2012) have emphasized the
necessity of comparing selection approaches side by side. The Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a widely
used and accepted MCDM method because it is straightforward and based
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

on the idea that the best solution is the one that is farthest from the nega-
tive ideal solution and closest to the positive ideal solution (Yoon et al.
1995). Due to its solid mathematical grounding, simplicity, and ease of
use, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) has received more than 13,000 citations and has been frequently
used for actual MCDM challenges. TOPSIS is regarded as one of the core
methods of MADM and has served as inspiration for numerous other
methods and benchmarking based on it (Zavadskas et al. 2016; Kuo 2017),
such as the Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution geographic
GeoTOPSIS.
The development of Multi-Criteria analysis combined with geographical
analysis using GIS is called GeoTOPSIS. The use of MCDA models in
research for archaeology prediction has not been widely carried out. The
majority of researchers have used GIS-Based Fuzzy (Mink et al. 2009;
Nsanziyera et al. 2018a, b; Hatzinikolaou et al. 2003); AHP (Nsanziyera
et al. 2018a, b) and MCDA (Parow-Souchon et al. 2021) for the prediction
of archaeological sites. TOPSIS and AHP-GeoTOPSIS methods are widely
applied for site suitability studies (Fatih et al. 2021; Artikanur et al. 2022;
Ustaoglu et al. 2021). However, its use in archaeology management is rare.
Therefore, this study integrates GeoTOPSIS with GIS and AHP, resulting
in more accurate predictions of the archaeological site. To our knowledge,
no other researcher has used this integrated strategy to predict historic
sites.
In this study, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for
Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) were chosen
because AHP is one of the most widely used Multiple Attribute Decision-
Making (MCDM) methods and offers several benefits (Saaty 2008).
Because of its hierarchical nature, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is
scalable and can simply alter in size to suit decision-making challenges.
While the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solu-
tion) is an effective strategy for dealing with multi-criteria decision-making
difficulties in the actual world. Technique for Order of Preference by Simi-
larity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) supports decision-makers in organizing
issues to be solved, analyzing, comparing, and ranking different solutions
(Chang et al. 2012).
Algeria, which is renowned for its vast territory and exceptional diver-
sity of urban and architectural history, has seen unchecked destruction of
its prehistoric human settlements since the 1990s, as a result of the political
unrest at the time. In fact, the Ksour (see supplementary) are currently
being subjected, across the nation, to a process of inevitable degeneration.
La Saoura, one of North Africa’s most renowned Saharan oasis, is home to
 GUECHI ET AL.

a wealth of historical and archaeological possibilities that might be of both

local and global significance.
The Saharan Ksours were cleverly placed in the vast Sahara desert; some
were located on the edge of the trade routes that crossed the desert, such
as the gold lines that connected African nations like Ghana, Mali, and Sun-
ray with the cities of the North; other Ksour were scattered in areas where
water was accessible. Due to all these causes and influences, SAHARA had
several varieties of ksour, which were found in many valley-like regions,
including the MIZAB valley, Ziban, Souf, Righ, and Touat in the far west-
ern Sahara (Cote 2005; Ahriz et al. 2017). The ksar constitutes, by its archi-
tectural and urbanistic value, one of the historical landmarks of the current
Saharan cities, but which unfortunately continues to sink into neglect. The
maintenance of its level of degradation at the rate observed will certainly
result in its disappearance with all the negative and irreparable conse-
quences that such a phenomenon could generate on the development of
Saharan territories (Hammoudi 2012). The application of the GIS-AHP-
GeoTOPSIS model on already known historical sites like our case study
‘‘Ksour of Saoura in Bechar’’ is to confirm the reliability of the GIS-AHP-
GeoTOPSIS model to predict the location of other historical sites in the
vast desert of SAHARA.
The paper’s major goal is to predict the location of archaeological sites
in Southwestern Algeria. Secondly contributing to the literature by provid-
ing a hybrid method of GIS-GeoTOPSIS-AHP for archaeology.

Study Area

The city of Béchar is situated in the western Algerian Sahara. Its territory
is 5050 km2, and it corresponds to a portion of the former Saoura depart-
ment (Fig. 1). It is located 950 km to the southwest of Algiers, the coun-
try’s capital…and a population of about 279,851 people. The Wilaya of
Adrar limits it to the east, the Kingdom of Morocco to the west, the
Wilayas of Naâma and El Bayadh to the north, and the Wilayas of Tindouf
and Adrar to the south. With a divergent temperature regime and infre-
quent precipitation, this city has an arid desert environment. Numerous
oueds descend from the mountain ranges that define the northern bound-
ary, including Bechar, Zouzfana, and Guir, which come together to create
the corridor of Oued El Saoura and plummet into the Sahara before drying
up gradually, and it completely vanishes at the entrance to Touat, where it
gives rise to several affluent oasis at the entrance to the terrifying Tanez-
rouft. On the caravan road from Feguig to Touat, Bechar is located. Touat
and Gourara may be reached from Bechar, which is at the summit of the
Saoura, and from there, sub-Saharan Africa. From Feguig to Bouda, the
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Fig. 1. Location map of Study area

caravans could travel for just fourteen days, passing by a few villages and
oasis along the way, and they could always find water.

Methodology and Materials

The objective of this study was to predict the archaeological sites locations
in the SAHARA desert. The following procedures were used to achieve this
objective. First, the different data and defining criteria for the location of
archaeological sites were determined. Then, a GIS-based Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis (MCDA) was performed through the application of the
GIS, AHP, and TOPSIS integration model. The latter is important to detect
the histories sites in the SAHARA desert. A geographic information system
(GIS) is used as a spatial analysis tool, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
is used to calculate the weights of indices, and Technique for Order of
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to rank and
prioritize the appropriate area.
 GUECHI ET AL.

Morphological and Topographic data

The availability of the essential data is so important to the study; the

authors generated certain data that could not be collected from official
sources.

– We have utilized the digital elevation model (DEM) to analyze the ter-
rain of the area. SRTM DEM with 30 m of spatial resolution and 10–
20 m of vertical resolution (from Open Topographies website https://por
tal.opentopography.org/datasets). The resulting DEM is used for later
processing in this study.
– We used the LandSat-8 multispectral image cover of the study area, with
30 m of spatial resolution (freely available from the NASA database htt
p://www.earthexplorer.usgs.gov/).

To prepare the data for analysis, preprocessing techniques such as

mosaicking, projection, resampling, and subsetting were used for each ras-
ter dataset.

Geo-environmental Criteria Selected

According to (Kohler 1988), the reference site is a region where historic

site and geo-environmental criteria’s are well known and may be accurately
characterized. Empirical relationships can be used to predict the distribu-
tion of archaeological site in different locations once they have been deter-
mined from the reference site research. The robustness of the model may
be measured by comparing model outputs with real observations in a site
reference.
In order to generate predictive modeling of the location of archaeologi-
cal sites, a well-defined dataset is first required to specify criteria based on
the geo-environmental factors that govern the location of historic site
(Ksours of Saoura).
The ksours of the Sahara are based on the triptych: water—ksar—palm
grove, which forms an indissociable whole characterized, by coherence and
self-sufficiency (Cote 2005). It is on this principle that we have chosen the
criteria for predicting the location of the Saharan historic site. Eight geo-
environmental criteria (see supplementary) were used for deriving the pre-
dictive model as shown in Table 1: slope, Digital Elevation Model (DEM),
Hillshade, Distance to rivers, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI), Fertility, Distance to the palm grove, and Distance to urban area.
The ranking and scoring method was used to standardize all of the factor
prediction maps, the suitability levels ranging from 1 to 10. A higher score
Table 1 Predictive scale of criteria for location of archaeological site in Bechar

Predictive scale Geo-environmental criteria

Slope (%) DEM(m) Hillshade Distance to rivers (m) NDVI Fertility Distance to the Distance to
palm grove(m) urban area(m)
1 39.55–76.40 1409–2156 0–67 D > 10,000 (- 0.14) to 0–181.7 D > 450 D > 4500
(- 0.20)
2 29.66–39.55 1110–1409 67–106 9000–8000 (- 0.011) to 181.7–363.4 450–400 4500–4000
(- 0.14)
3 23.37–29.66 921–1110 106–131 8000–7000 (- 0.09) to 363.4–545.1 400–350 4000–3500
(- 0.011)
4 18.27–23.37 812–921 131–149 7000–6000 (- 0.088) to 545.1–726.8 350–300 3500–3000
(- 0.09)
5 14.08–18.27 733–812 149–162 6000–5000 (- 0.082) to 726.8–908.5 300–250 3000–2500
(- 0.088)
6 10.48–14.08 658–733 162–171 5000–4000 (- 0.07) to 908.5–1090.2 250–200 2500–2000
(- 0.082)
7 7.19–10.48 586–658 171–179 4000–3000 (- 0.06) to 1090.2–1271.9 200–150 2000–1500
(- 0.07)
8 4.19–7.19 514–586 179–181 3000–2000 (- 0.05) to 1271.9–1453.6 150–100 1500–1000
(- 0.06)
9 1.79–4.19 442–514 181–202 2000–1000 0.09-(- 0.05) 1453.6–1635.3 100–50 1000–500
Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

10 0–1.79 0–442 202–254 1000 > D 0–0.09 1635.3–1817 50 > D 500 > D
 GUECHI ET AL.

suggests a lesser degree of constraint or a better degree of suitability

(Fig. 2) shows the resulting maps.

The Underlying Reasoning for the Selection of Criteria

During our extensive field study conducted in collaboration with geogra-

pher Marc Cote, a renowned specialist in oases, particularly those in south-
ern Algeria, we engaged in in-depth interviews with local residents and
conducted meticulous observations on the Ksour in the South West region
of Algeria. In addition to conducting comprehensive bibliographic research
on Ksours, we carefully selected the following criteria to form the founda-
tion of our prediction model:
First and foremost, we took into consideration the fundamental princi-
ple highlighted by (Cote 2005) that Ksours in the Sahara region are firmly
rooted in a triptych concept consisting of water, ksar (fortified village),
and palm grove. These three elements form an inseparable whole character-
ized by coherence and self-sufficiency. Guided by this principle, we judi-
ciously chose the criteria that would facilitate the accurate prediction of
Saharan historical site locations.
Secondly, our research drew upon the insightful classification proposed
by (Cominardi 2010) which differentiates between two distinct types of
Ksours: mountain Ksars and Saharan Ksars. Mountain Ksars typically
emerge in close proximity to mountainous terrain, whereas Saharan Ksars
predominantly arise on flat ground (see supplementary Fig. 3 and Fig. 5).
This classification led us to prioritize topographical criteria such as slope,
Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and Hillshade as primary factors in our
selection process. It is important to note that dwelling on excessively steep
terrain can present significant challenges, if not render habitation impossi-
ble. To simulate potential Ksar locations, we leveraged the Hillshade tech-
nique within ArcGIS. Hillshade employs the aspect of the slope, allowing
us to ascertain areas that offer the most shaded spaces. According to
(Najafifar et al. 2017; Najafifar et al. 2019), the utilization of Hillshade in
ecological studies surpasses that of Aspect, as it enables the observation of
daily and annual solar radiation regimes, thereby facilitating comprehensive
statistical analysis.
The third criterion we incorporated was proximity to water, which we
assessed by measuring the distance to rivers. The availability of water
resources significantly increases the likelihood of human settlement (Bellal
et al. 2016). Ksars, due to their inherent water dependency, are invariably
situated downstream along the hydraulic path. Moreover, to optimize
water conservation, the residential portion of the Ksar is customarily posi-
tioned near the upstream section of rivers (Cote 1998). Undeniably, the
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Fig. 2. Criteria used in the AHP-GeoTOPSIS method

 GUECHI ET AL.

presence of water is the key factor that motivated inhabitants to congregate

and establish Ksours (Hammoudi 2014).
Lastly, based on our comprehensive investigation conducted in the
Sahara region, we discovered that Ksars are predominantly inhabited by
sedentary populations engaged in subsistence agriculture. These communi-
ties cultivate plots of land that are irrigated through ingenious techniques,
such as diverting water from springs using small detour dams or employ-
ing Foggaras. Foggaras, in particular, are gravity-based water drainage sys-
tems that utilize a series of wells strategically positioned on a slope,
allowing water to flow toward the palm grove (Ait Saadi 2019). The symbi-
otic relationship between the Ksar and the oasis creates a unique ecosystem
that facilitates human habitation. Morphologically, the Ksar embodies a
harmonious and compact form, characterized by clay construction and a
horizontal layout that seamlessly blends with the lush green oasis. More-
over, the primary function of the Ksar is agricultural in nature.
During our interactions with local citizens throughout the Sahara
region, we learned that the economic prosperity of the area heavily relies
on palm trees, which serve as a vital source of income for the local popula-
tion. The locals depend on these trees for their livelihoods, and they metic-
ulously replace any dying palm trees to maintain the productivity of the
palm groves. It is interesting to note that new oases are not established in
different locations; instead, the expansion of existing oases occurs, thus
emphasizing the significance of pre-existing oases in our study. This
intriguing insight was shared with our team and played a pivotal role in
our work.
The Ksour of Saoura, an agrarian entity founded on the triptych of
water, habitat, and palm grove, bears striking resemblance to other oases in
the Sahara region (Cote 2005). Consequently, our third criterion focuses
on agriculture, taking into account factors, such as fertility, distance to the
palm grove, and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI).
As (Cote 2002) aptly observes, virtually all habitable places in the Sahara
exhibit some form of significant landmark, be it a well, Ksar, or fortifica-
tion. The creation of entirely new cities ex nihilo is a rarity in this region.
The Ksours in southwestern Algeria have undergone a distinct spatial evo-
lution, primarily driven by urbanization processes initiated after indepen-
dence and experiencing unprecedented acceleration over the past three
decades (Côte 1998). Architecturally and urbanistically, the Ksar represents
a historical cornerstone of present-day Saharan cities, serving as their initial
focal point or as a grouping of Ksours. Consequently, we have included
the criterion of distance to the urban area to predict urban heritage,
acknowledging the crucial role that Ksours play in shaping the spatial
development of Saharan cities (Hammoudi 2012).
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Fig. 3. The flowchart of the study

After the choice of the criteria, we will apply the GIS-AHP-TOPSIS

model, which is presented in the following flowchart (Fig. 3).

AHP-GeoTOPSIS Method

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

In this study, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach was used to
determine the weight in the Technique for Order of Preference by Similar-
ity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) analysis. The aim of Analytic Hierarchy
 GUECHI ET AL.

Process (AHP) analysis is to establish the order of the criteria and evaluate
the relative weight of each one. Interviewing techniques were used to
acquire the data for the AHP. Slope, DEM, Hillshade, Distance to rivers,
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Fertility, Distance to the
palm grove, and Distance to urban area were among the factors used. The
importance of each criterion is indicated on a scale from one to nine. In
the pairwise comparison matrix, the number nine denotes that one item is
extremely important in contrast to the other. The information gathered
during the interviews was transformed into a pairwise comparison matrix.
AHP also incorporates a concept of consistency rate to determine overall
weights and consistency of priorities. For Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) the consistency rate needs to be less than 0.1 to demonstrate consis-
tency of weights and priorities. In this work, the precise weight for each
criterion was calculated using Expert Choice software.

Geographic Information System (GIS) Analysis

All spatial manipulations, analyses, and representations were performed

within the GIS, which was used to produce relevant spatial coverage. Spa-
tial data layers for the eight criteria that help predict site history such as
slope, DEM, Hillshade, distance to rivers, normalized difference vegetation
index (NDVI), fertility, distance to palm grove, and distance to urban area
were prepared in a raster format using GIS techniques from data collected
from various sources. The criteria maps are reclassified so that they are all
on the same scale, from 1 to 10 and stored in raster grid points of
0.05 km 9 0.05 km in the GIS and then we will convert the raster maps to
vector maps in order to export them to Qgis to apply the TOPSIS method.

GeoTOPSIS

The best tool to illustrate the complexity of the system is ‘‘GeoTOPSIS,’’

which is based on the ‘‘TOPSIS’’ approach (Hwang and Yoon 1981) and is
included in an open-source QGIS plugin called ‘‘Vector MCDA.’’ It
exploits a set of multi-criteria analysis algorithms on vector data based on
the principle that each geographic feature represents a unique choice or
‘‘geo-alternative.’’ The output of each algorithm is a preference index after
examining and processing the attributes as criteria (Rocchi et al. 2015).
The GeoTOPSIS model, which is based on the TOPSIS model, runs the
ideal point algorithms and produces a map showing how different geo-
graphic arrangements can be achieved.
The TOPSIS technique is a distance computation that allocates the best
option to the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the
longest distance from the negative ideal solution. These distances are fac-
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

tored into a similarity index, which will be sorted to determine the best
options.
The calculation steps of the TOPSIS method are
The Euclidean norm was used to make the matrix D dimensionless. The
dimensionless matrix obtained is referred to as ND .
rij
rij ¼  ; ðj ¼ 1; . . . . . . . . . . . . ; nÞ: ð1Þ
Pm 2 12
i¼1 rij

The following equation is used to build a normalized weighted decision

matrix:
V ¼ ND Wnn : ð2Þ
Following that, ideal positive ( Aþ 
i ) and ideal negative ( Ai ) alternatives
were determined:
 
Aþ ¼ y1þ ; y2þ ; . . . . . . :ynþ ; ð3Þ
 
A ¼ y1 ; y2 ; . . . . . . :yn ; ð4Þ

maxyij ; if j is a benef it attributeðbenef it Þ
y1þ ¼ ;
minyij ; if j is a cos t attribute ðcos t Þ

maxyij ; if j is a benef it attribute ðbenef it Þ
y1 ¼ :
minyij ; if j is a cos t attributeðcos t Þ

Then, the following equation was used to calculate the distance between
the values of each alternative using the positive ideal solution matrix and
the negative ideal solution matrix:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n  þ 2
Dþi ¼ t yi  yij ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . . . . . . . ; mÞ; ð5Þ
j¼1

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n  2
Di ¼ t

yij  yi ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . . . . . . . ; mÞ: ð6Þ
j¼1

Calculate the value of choice for each option using the equation below.
D
i
Ci ¼ þ ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . . . . . . . ; nÞ; ð7Þ
ðD
i þ Di Þ

where 0  CIþ  1 and i ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . :; m:

 GUECHI ET AL.

This option’s value is the last value that is used to order or prioritize all
of the options that have been considered. The higher the priority value of
the alternative selected, the higher the value of Ci . Following that, GIS was
used to map the TOPSIS method’s results for priority ranking.

Results

The Weights Calculated Using the AHP Method

The pairwise matrix comparison technique has produced a ratio matrix.

Each level’s criteria are paired together according to how important they
are in relation to the elements (criteria) in the level above it. Elements go
from a higher level to a lower level (Malczewski et al. 2015). The mathe-
matical formula for the pairwise matrix A ¼ aij n:n is as follows:
2 3
a11 a12 a13 a1n
6 a21 a22 a23 a2n 7
A¼6 7
4 a31 a32 a33 a3n 5: ð8Þ
an1 an2 an3 ann
The normalized pairwise comparison matrix is utilized following the for-
mation of pairwise matrices the resulting values are provided in the follow-
ing table (Table 2).
The weights determined for each criteria are listed in (Fig. 4). When the
weights of eight criteria are compared, it is clear that distance to the pal-
meraie, distance to the urban center, and distance to the Stream are the
most effective. According to (Cote 2005), the triptych of water, ksar, and
palm grove serves as the foundation for the Saharan ksours. On the other
side, the least effective variables were found to be fertility, NDVI, DEM,
Hillshade, and slope. The value of the consistency ratio CR is 0.07, they

Table 2 Comparison of the relative importance of the criteria

Slope Hillshade Streams NDV Fertility Palmaris Urban

DEM 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
Slope 1.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
Hillshade 6.0 5.0 4.0 9.0 9.0
Streams 3.0 1.0 6.0 4.0
NDV 1.0 9.0 6.0
Fertility 3.0 5.0
Palmaris 4.0
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Fig. 4. The weights calculated using the AHP method

are less than 0.10, so the weights and priority are consistent and can be
utilized for research.

Determine the predict archaeological site locations

with GeoTOPSIS

After determining the weight of each criteria, the GeoTOPSIS method was
used to predict the archaeological site in each place. Because it was coupled
with the geographic information system GIS, the GeoTOPSIS approach
was able to map the ranking results using the normal TOPSIS method. In
this case, we converted the raster map to points to analyze the priority of
each point in the Bechar region and then we filled the points with all the
attributes of the criteria used in the analysis so that the result was a map
of the priority locations of the archaeological site (Fig. 5).
The prediction scores for each matrix cell range from the lowest to the
highest value (from 1 to 05). Although the most favorable regions for pre-
dicting archaeological sites were identified at various locations within the
research area, these areas were particularly concentrated along the Saoura
Valley, near the palm grove and the Saharan settlements. The suitability of
the terrain decreases as one moves from the Saoura Valley toward the lim-
its of the study area, particularly in the bare ground and with uneven ter-
rain.

Accuracy of the Model’s Predictions

33 Well-known Ksar in our case study were used in the creation of our
model, to confirm its accuracy (Kvamme 1988) claimed that we may use
Eq to gauge a prediction model’s robustness.
 GUECHI ET AL.

Fig. 5. Map of prediction of archaeological sites locations in Bechar

%PS
G¼1 ;
%OS
where PS is the overall area of the high-potential zones, G is the model
gain, and OS stands for the observed sites inside the high-potential zones.
The model’s ability to predict site locations with reasonable accuracy is
expressed by the model gain. The model gain is between 1 (strong predic-
tive model) and 0 (poor predictive model). In our case study, the com-
puted gain is 0.98 based on Eq. (9) and model prediction data (Table 3):
(42.42% and 48.48%) of the observed sites were located in the zones pro-
jected as high and very high-potential zones (representing 1.25% and
0.16% of the overall area). According to (Kvamme 1988), a gain of 98% is
a respectable increase.

Discussion

The concept underlying modeling is that ancient and prehistoric peoples

were strongly tethered to their natural and cultural environs and that these
factors were a primary driver in their choice of site placement (Clement
et al. 2001). In order to identify possible natural factors, predictive model-
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Table 3 Calculation of predictive gain

Zone potentiality Number of sites Sites (%) Area (%)

Very Low 0 0 0.63
Low 0 0 51.83
Medium 3 9.09 46.10
High 14 42.42 1.25
Very High 16 48.48 0.16

ing looks at fertility, elevation, slope, proximity to water, and palmeraie. In

an effort to pinpoint the locations of the Ksour, GIS tools were utilized for
mapping, and other studies such as buffer zoning, adjacent calculation, and
overlay analysis were employed to build a prediction model (GIS-AHP-
GEOTOPSIS). The specific prediction model was developed using a multi-
parametric spatial analytic approach that used geographic, statistical, and
archaeological data to create maps with an interest in archaeology (Van
Leusen et al. 2005; Jacoli 1996; Alexakis et al. 2011).
According to our model, the bulk of the Ksour site is situated along the
Soura valley in the research region. Other locations with a probability of
harboring the Ksour site are found close to tiny, isolated mountains that
make up the study’s northern region. In relation to the resulting map of
the prediction, we notice that there are areas with a very high probability
of prediction located far from the river and close to the mountain, this is
Ksour Mountain, which is a type of Ksar. The aspect of this type is
depending on the configuration of the site and its limit to the outside and
location at the foot of the mountain (Ait Saadi et al. 2019). These Ksour
depend on the underground water coming down from the top of the
mountains. According to (Ait Saadi et al. 2019), the Ksar mountain is gen-
erally inhabited by sedentary populations practicing subsistence agriculture
in plots irrigated by water diverted from springs by small dams or by
‘‘Foggaras’’ which are a device for gravity drainage of underground water
by a series of wells practiced on a slope toward the palm grove.
From Fig. 5, we see that there are areas with a high and medium proba-
bility of prediction, especially along the recent or simulated river. Accord-
ing to Algerie Press Service on May 19, 2021, many historical sites are
discovered recently especially in ALABADLA near the river, where we
found a high and medium probability in our prediction. These sites con-
tain prehistoric engravings of the Neolithic age whose drawings on the
rocks highlight which are human representations and several animal species
that once lived in the region, such as antelopes, elephants, ostriches,
gazelles, camels, and giraffes. According to (Belkeddar 2016), these sites
 GUECHI ET AL.

show that man and certain animal species have lived a long time (since the
Neolithic to the historical periods) in the Bechar region, which has several
sites of this type. They range from the Taghit oasis to Kerzaz via Igli and
Béni Abbes, concentrated along the river valleys (Fig. 6).
Therefore, the model can predict the location of the unknown sites
threatened by development. And the historic settlements that are no longer
in use like the ksar of Bni Abes which is abandoned ksour and threatened
with loss (Cady et al. 2022).
From ancient times to the present, geography has been a key factor in
determining where people should live, and modern people now have more
possibilities. People choose their homes depending on a variety of elements
over time, including hydrology, geography, terrain, biology, and other
human settlements. Prehistoric people depended more on geography. For
the ancient inhabitants, favorable geographical features and water supplies
for agriculture became crucial references (Tan et al. 2022).

Fig. 6. Sites contain prehistoric engravings locations in Bechar Source: Field survey,
Ghodbani and Belkeddar, 2009–2014
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

The AHP method is adaptable and may be used with other techniques
like linear programming and TOPSIS. It is an effective strategy for dealing
with difficult choice problems like determining weights for suitability crite-
ria. It gives a well-structured method for calculating weights and standard-
izing criteria.
The model’s evaluation proved the efficacy of the suggested methodol-
ogy. It is necessary to deem the model reliable based on the prediction
results, which come in the form of a prediction map with a gain of 98%.
The goal of using this data as a contribution to archaeological field
research is to identify small areas that have a high likelihood of hosting
archaeological sites, necessitating further field investigations to confirm the
presence of such sites. This research demonstrated that an accurate predic-
tive model could provide predictions about where archaeological sites
should and should not be positioned in a certain area.
The prediction model results are influenced by factors, such as resolu-
tions and the size of historic sites. Resolution refers to the smallest size an
object or detail can be represented in an image. Higher resolution means
that pixel sizes are smaller, providing more detail. For example, 30-cm res-
olution satellite imagery can capture criteria detail on historic sites that are
greater than or equal to 30 cm by 30 cm. So, if the pixel size is small, the
accuracy of the model increases, and as the size of historic sites increases,
the model becomes more accurate and vice versa.

Conclusion

Algeria, which is renowned for its vast territory and exceptional diversity
of urban and architectural history, has seen a rife deterioration of its his-
toric communities during the 1990s, after the political unrest. The Ksour
are currently being subjected, across the nation, to a process of deteriora-
tion and unavoidable disappearance. We proposed a process for developing
an archaeological predictive model (GIS-AHP-GeoTOPSIS) that can iden-
tify regions with a high likelihood of supporting archaeological sites.
Geospatial approaches are used in the methodology, which has been
demonstrated to be a potent and effective tool for archaeological prospec-
tions as it narrows the range of interest for field prospections.
In this paper, the AHP-GeoTOPSIS method was proposed for use in
predict of archaeological site location. The approach combines the advan-
tages of the AHP and TOPSIS methods. The GIS, AHP, and TOPSIS com-
bined model creates a valuable tool for identify regions with a high
likelihood of supporting archaeological sites. This method uses a multi-cri-
teria approach to issues, which is then further analyzed and ranked in a
hierarchical framework. The model uses ArcGIS to analyze spatial data,
 GUECHI ET AL.

AHP to calculate criteria weights, and TOPSIS to evaluate and rank the
alternatives/selected parcels.
A total of 08 criteria were identified and used in the research to predict
archaeological sites’ locations in desert areas region. 33 well-known Ksar in
our case study were used in the creation of our model. The results indicate
that 48.48% of the ksours are located in areas that had very high potential
and 42.42% are located in high potentiality areas and representing 0.16%
and 1.25% of the total area. The model’s ability to predict site locations
with reasonable accuracy is expressed by the model gain, which is equal to
98%, it is considered a strong predictive model. The purpose of using this
model of prediction as a contribution to archaeological fieldwork is to
identify tiny regions that have a high potential of harboring archaeological
sites and to validate the presence of such sites in the probability zone, and
additional fieldwork is required.
Using archaeological predictive modeling, one may determine how likely
it is that archaeological sites will be found in a certain place and avoid tra-
ditional techniques, like field inventories, where these field studies take a
lot of time since teams of several persons are required to cover broad areas
primarily on foot. The findings of this study will be extremely helpful to
planners in avoiding locations where historic sites are expected to exist,
which makes them a crucial tool for the protection of archaeological sites.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors state that they have no conflicts
of interest.

References
Ahriz, A., Zemmouri, N., & Fezzai, S.
(2017). Ksour of the SAHARA desert as a great lesson of sustainable urban
design in hot desert oases. Journal Impact Factor, 3, 110.
Ait Saadi, M. H.
(2019). l’urbanisme en milieu aride : environnement et développement durable-cas
des ksour de Boussemghoun et Ttiout (Doctoral dissertation, Université
Mohamed Khider–Biskra).
Alexakis, D., Sarris, A., Astaras, T., & Albanakis, K.
(2011). Integrated GIS, remote sensing and geomorphologic approaches for the
reconstruction of the landscape habitation of Thessaly during the neo-
lithic period. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(1), 89–100.
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Allen, K. M. S., Green, S. W., & Zubrow, E. B. W. (Eds.).

(1990). Interpreting space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor & Francis.
Artikanur, S. D., & Setiawan, Y.
(2022). AHP-GeoTOPSIS method to analyze priority areas for sugarcane planta-
tion development in Lamongan Regency. In IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science (Vol. 950, No. 1, p. 012078). IOP Publishing.
Belkeddar, Z., Ghodbani, T., & LE Quellec, J. L.
(2016). Les gravures rupestres de la région de Taghit: Intérêt archéologique et
dégradations. Les cahiers du Crasc, No, 32, 117–130.
Bellal, S. A., Hadeid, M., Ghodbani, T., & Dari, O.
(2016). Accès à l’eau souterraine et transformations de l’espace oasien: Le cas
d’Adrar (Sahara du Sud-ouest algérien). Cahiers de géographie du Qué-
bec, 60(169), 29–56.
Belmonte, J., Esteban, C., Cuesta, L., Perera Betancort, M., & Gonzarez, J.
(1999). Pre-Islamic burial moniments in Northern and Saharan Morocco.
Archaeoastronomy, 24, 21–34.
Brandt, R., Groenewoudt, B. J., & Kvamme, K. L.
(1992). An experiment in archaeological site location: Modeling in the Nether-
lands using GIS techniques. World archaeology, 24(2), 268–282.
Cady, M., Guechi, I., Ben Bouaziz, A., & Alkama, Dj.
(2022). The Future of Ksourien Heritage in the Face of the Experiences of Safe-
guarding. International Journal of Innovation Studied in Sociology
Humanities, 7(10), 18–28.
Cerreta, M., & Toro, P. D.
(2010). Integrated spatial assessment for a creative decision-making process: A
combined methodological approach to strategic environmental assess-
ment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(1–2), 17–30.
Chakraborty, S., & Yeh, C. H.
(2007, February). A simulation based comparative study of normalization proce-
dures in multiattribute decision making. In Proceedings of the 6th Confer-
ence on 6th WSEAS Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge
Engineering and Data Bases (Vol. 6, pp. 102–109).
Chakraborty, S., & Yeh, C. H.
(2012). Comparison based group ranking outcome for multiattribute group
decisions. In 2012 UKSim 14th International Conference on Computer
Modelling and Simulation (pp. 324–327). IEEE.
Chang, H. K., Liou, J. C., & Chen, W. W.
(2012). Protection priority in the coastal environment using a hybrid ahp-topsis
method on the Miaoli coast, Taiwan. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(2),
369–374.
 GUECHI ET AL.

Clement, C. O., De, S., & Kloot, R. W.

(2001). Using GIS to Model and Predict Likely Archaeological Sites. In ESRI
Users Conferences 2001.
Cominardi, F.
(2010). Au coeur des monts des Ksour. Habitat: Tradition et Modernité, 2, 45–
66.
Côte, M.
(1998). Des oasis malades de trop d’eau? Science et Changements Planétaires/
Sécheresse, 9(2), 123–130.
(2002). De quelques villes nouvelles au Sahara (Note). Méditerranée, 99(3), 71–
76.
Cote, M. (Ed.).
(2005). La ville et le désert: le Bas-Sahara algérien. Karthala Éditions.
Di Lernia, S.
(2013). Places, monuments, and landscape: Evidence from the Holocene central
Sahara, Azania. Archaeological Research in Africa, 48(2), 173–192.
Fatih, S. A. R. I., & Sari, F. K.
(2021). Multi criteria decision analysis to determine the suitability of agricultural
crops for land consolidation areas. International Journal of Engineering
and Geosciences, 6(2), 64–73.
Fusco Girard, L., & De Toro, P.
(2007). Integrated spatial assessment: A multicriteria approach to sustainable
development of cultural and environmental heritage in San Marco dei
Cavoti, Italy. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 15(3),
281–299.
Galan, E., Torres, J., Senoran, J.M.,
(2014). Archaeological Interventions. Search of Traces of the Human Presence
in the Valley. Complutum 25 (2), 45–76.
Gherraz, H., Guechi, I., & Dj, A.
(2022). Contribution of Morphometrics in the Study and Conservation of an
Urban Heritage. Int J Innov Stud Sociol Humanities., 7(1), 25–40.
Haidar-Boustani, M., Iban, J. J., Al-Maqdissi, M., Armendari, A., Gonzalez Urquijo,
J., & Teira, L.
(2004). Prospections Archaeologiques a‘ l’ouest de la ville de Homs : rapport
pre liminaire campagne 2004. Ann. Hist. Archaeol. 14–15.
Hamadouche, M. A., Mederbal, K., Kouri, L., Regagba, Z., Fekir, Y., & Anteur, D.
(2014). GIS-based multicriteria analysis: An approach to select priority areas for
preservation in the Ahaggar National Park, Algeria. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 7(2), 419–434.
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Hammoudi, A.
(2012). Le patrimoine ksourien, mutation et devenir: Cas du Zab El Gherbi-
Tolga, Thèse de Magister, Biskra, 236 p.
Hasenstab, R. J.
(1983). A preliminary cultural resource sensitivity analysis for flood control facilities
construction in the Passaic River basin of New Jersey. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Marietta, GAReturn to ref 1983 in article
Hatzinikolaou, E., Hatzichristos, T., Siolas, A., & Mantzourani, E.
(2003). Predicting archaeological site locations using GIS and fuzzy logic. In
CAA2002 The Digital Heritage of Archaeology. Proceedings of the 30th
Conference (Heraklion, Crete 2002) (pp. 169–177).
https://www.aps.dz/culture/121952-bechar-les-sites-rupestres-en-quete-d-un-schema-
de-protection-et-de-sauvegarde. See 16/12/2022.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K.
(1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute deci-
sion making (pp. 58–191). Springer.
Jacoli, M., Carrara, A.
(1996). GIS-based Multivariate Models for Identifying Archaeological Sites, Cal-
abria, Southern Italy. In Proceedings of the International Congress on
‘‘Science and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in The
Mediterranean Basin’’, 27 November–2 December, 1995, Catania, Italy.
Kohler, T.A.
(1988). Predictive locational modelling: History and current practice. In: Judge,
W.L., Sebastian, L. (Eds.), Quantifying the Present and Predicting the
Past: Theory, Method and Application of Archaeological Predictive Model-
ing. US Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, USA (pp. 19–59).
Krist, F.
(2001). Multi-criteria predictive modeling: A tool for archaeological problem solv-
ing’’, GIS and Archaeological Predictive Modeling Conference: Large-Scale
Approaches to Establish a Baseline for Site Location Models. Argonne
National Laboratory.
Kuo, T.
(2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of
Operational Research, 260(1), 152–160.
Kvamme, K. L.
(1988). Development and testing of quantitative models. Quantifying the present
and predicting the past: theory, method, and application of archaeologi-
cal predictive modeling, 325–428.
Kvamme, K. L.
(2005). There and back again: Revisiting archaeological locational modeling. In
GIS and archaeological site location modeling (pp. 23–55). CRC Press
 GUECHI ET AL.

Laskar, A.
(2003). Integrating GIS and multicriteria decision making techniques for land
resource planning. ITC.
Linstadter, J., & Blatt, M.
(2013). Sea, Slopes and Shelters: Archaeological Surveys along the Mediterranean
Coast, West of the Melilla Peninsula (Morocco). In: Pastoors, A., Auffer-
man, B. (Eds.), Pleistocene foragers: Their culture and environment. Wis-
senschaftliche Schriften des Nneanderthal Museums 6, Mettmann,
Germany, pp. 27–32.
Linstädter, J., Blatt, M., 2013. Sea, Slopes and Shelters: Archaeological Surveys along
the Mediterranean Coast, West of the Melilla Peninsula (Morocco). In: Pastoors,
A., Aufferman, B. (Eds.), Pleistocene foragers: Their culture and environment. Wis-
senschaftliche Schriften des Nneanderthal Museums 6, Mettmann, Germany, pp.
27–32.
Lock, G., & Stancic, Z. (Eds.).
(1995). Archaeology and geographical information systems: A European Perspective.
Taylor & Francis.
Lu, J., & Ruan, D.
(2007). Multi-objective group decision making: Methods, software and applications
with fuzzy set techniques (Vol. 6). Imperial College Press.
Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C.
(2015). Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic information science (Vol. 1,
pp. 55–77). Springer.
Mehrer, M. W., & Wescott, K. L. (Eds.).
(2005). GIS and archaeological site location modeling. CRC Press.
Mink, P. B., Ripy, J., Bailey, K., & Grossardt, T. H.
(2009). Predictive archaeological modeling using gis-based fuzzy set estimation: A
case study in Woodford County, Kentucky.
Najafifar, A., Hosseinzadeh, J., & Karamshahi, A.
(2019). The role of hillshade, aspect, and toposhape in the woodland dieback of
arid and semi-arid ecosystems: A case study in Zagros woodlands of
Ilam province. Iran. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 12(2), 79–91.
Najafifar, A., Moayeri, M. H., Shatai-Joybari, Sh., & Salman-Mahini, A.
(2017). The role of hillshade regime on canopy density and evaluation of ecolog-
ical capability in the Zagros woodlands (Case study: Kabirkooh forest of
Badreh city, Ilam province). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar
Research, 25(1), 23–34.
Nsanziyera, A. F., Lechgar, H., Fal, S., Maanan, M., Saddiqi, O., Oujaa, A., & Rhi-
nane, H.
(2018). Remote-sensing data-based Archaeological Predictive Model (APM) for
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

archaeological site mapping in desert area. South Morocco. Comptes Ren-

dus Geoscience, 350(6), 319–330.
Nsanziyera, A. F., Rhinane, H., Oujaa, A., & Mubea, K.
(2018). GIS and remote-sensing application in archaeological site mapping in
the Awsard Area (Morocco). Geosciences, 8(6), 207.
Oyarzun, M. C.
(2016). Predicting Archaeological Site Locations in Northeastern California’s High
Desert using the Maxent Model (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California).
Pappu, S., Akhilesh, K., Ravindranath, S., & Raj, U.
(2010). Applications of satellite remote sensing for research and heritage man-
agement in Indian prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(9),
2316–2331.
Pareta, K., & Jain, C. K.
(1992). Land suitability analysis for agricultural crops using multi-criteria deci-
sion making and GIS approach. Journal of Agrometeorology, 10, 112.
Parow-Souchon, H., Zickel, M., & Manner, H.
(2022). Upper Palaeolithic sites and where to find them: A predictive modelling
approach to assess site expectancy in the Southern Levant. Quaternary
International, 635, 53–72.
Parry, J. A., Ganaie, S. A., & Bhat, M. S.
(2018). GIS based land suitability analysis using AHP model for urban services
planning in Srinagar and Jammu urban centers of J&K, India. Journal of
Urban Management, 7(2), 46–56.
Rawlands, A., & Sarris, A.
(2007). Detection of exposed and subsurface archaeological remains using multi-
sensor remote sensing. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(5), 795–803.
Rocchi, L., Massei, G., Paolotti, L., & Boggia, A.
(2015). Geographic MCDA for sustainability assessment: the new tool Vec-
torMCDA. In EURO (The Association of European Operation Research
Societies), 27th European Conference on Operational Research. Glas-
gow, UK (pp. 12–15).
Roeloffs, A., Wiatr, T. O., Reicherter, K., & Museum, S. N.
(2011). Prospection of Karstic Caves Using Gis and Remote Sensing. ISPRS WG
VII/5 Workshop (pp. 107–115). Cologne, Germany.
Saaty, T. L.
(2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International jour-
nal of services sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
Siart, C., Eitel, B., & Panagiotopoulos, D.
(2008). Investigation of past archaeological landscapes using remote sensing.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 2918–2926.
 GUECHI ET AL.

Tan, B., Wang, H., Wang, X., Yi, S., Zhou, J., Ma, C., & Dai, X.
(2022). The study of early human settlement preference and settlement predic-
tion in Xinjiang, China. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–18.
Tarragüel, A. A., Krol, B., & Van Westen, C.
(2012). Analysing the possible impact of landslides and avalanches on cultural
heritage in Upper Svaneti, Georgia. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 13(4),
453–461.
Ustaoglu, E., Sisman, S., & Aydınoglu, A. C.
(2021). Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using
GIS and multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. Ecological
Modelling, 455, 109610.
Van Leusen, M., Deeben, J., Hallewas, D., Zoetbrood, P., Kamermans, H., & Verha-
gen, P.
(2005). A baseline for predictive modelling in the Netherlands. Predictive mod-
elling for archaeological heritage management: A research agenda, 25–
93.
Verhagen, P.
(2018). Spatial analysis in archaeology: moving into new territories. In Digital
geoarchaeology (pp. 11–25). Springer.
Warren, R. E., & Asch, D. L.
(2000). A predictive model of archaeological site location in the Eastern Prairie
Peninsula. Practical applications of GIS for archaeologists: a predictive
modeling kit, 5–32.
Willey, G. R.
(1953). Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Virú; Valley, Peru. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin.
Yeh, C. H.
(2002). A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods.
International Transactions in Operational Research, 9(2), 169–181.
Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L.
(1995). Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage.
Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M.
(2016). Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making
problems—An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(03),
645–682.
Zopounidis, C., & Pardalos, P. M. (Eds.).
(2010). Handbook of multicriteria analysis (Vol. 103). Springer Science & Busi-
ness Media.
 Predicting Archaeological Sites Locations in Desert Areas

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to
this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely
governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.