This paper has a twin methodological and interpretative focus. It presents the use of geospatial technologies applied to archaeological surveying. We use the high-resolution spatial and temporal data obtained from the study of the ancient Protohistoric and Roman landscape in the eastern area of the Iberian Peninsula (present-day Alicante province, Spain) to illustrate the methodological proposals. The observed spatial patterns allow us to infer certain aspects relating to the ancient use of the land, transformations in settlement patterns and the intensification of landscape use. 1. Rural landscape and surface record Studies of the ancient rural landscape face major challenges in identifying and explaining the archaeological vestiges. Most of the difficulties encountered during this type of research have been described in works devoted to that subject and it is beyond the possibilities of this paper to comment on and explain them (Alcock and Cherry, 2004; Mayoral and Sevillano, 2013). Nevertheless, along those initial lines we would like to refer to certain factors that, from our point of view, affect the question of the surface record. The first variables we find are natural and include soil conditions and topographic, climatic and edaphic particularities, as well as the vegetation, all of which condition the way in which the surface is seen. The impacts on surveys range from the soil visibility conditions caused by vegetation to the effect on slope topography of landslips that lead to greater surface dispersion. Another set of factors that conditions surveys is human secular establishment in rural environments and on farmland. Repeated occupation of the same niches blurs or erases earlier traces, making them difficult to identify and analyse. This particularly affects Mediterranean highland areas where terraces and banks have been built to parcel out farmland, mainly during the mediaeval and modern periods. Finally, we refer to ancient establishment methods, the intensity of land use and the properties of the surface archaeological record formed over the centuries. These formation conditions affect such aspects as the survival of building remains, movable find density and the way in which wider or narrower dispersions were formed. These factors sometimes lead to areas with a high density of surface archaeological record. These are places with high levels of dispersed remains consisting of thousands of fragments that often form virtual carpets of pottery remains covering hundreds of hectares. Sometimes they result from the superposition of pottery remains from different periods as a result of a dense historical stratification of rural sites. On occasions those extensive zones of finds are dated to a single period, which presents us with post-depositional processes and farming practices that have led to the formation of such complex spatial distributions of remains. These circumstances make it necessary to use archaeological surface investigation methodologies with multiple techniques with the aim of increasing the spatial and chronological resolution of the data obtained. Only by refining the procedures will we be able to progress in our understanding of the ancient rural landscape. In the following article we present the methodological proposals for surveying, analysing and interpreting these zones with a high density of surface remains. Based on specific cases from the Protohistoric and Roman periods in our study area we illustrate the methods and proposals for the archaeological interpretation of the evidence. The study area is the River Serpis valley, a mountainous region in the north of the present-day province of Alicante (Spain). In antiquity it was a territory presided over by fortified centres of a certain size from which a dense dispersed rural occupation was organised. These rural communities d basically farms and small villages d are fundamental to our understanding of the ways in

Settlement archaeology is the study of the selection criteria of settlements in the landscape, interrelationships between cities and their rural surroundings, the impact of human occupation on the natural environment etc. in the past. It can also be described as 'landscape archaeology', which is basically focuses on the ways in which past people constructed and used the environment around them. The study of settlement archaeology or landscape archaeology has evolved to understand how landscapes were used to create and reinforce social inequality in past human culture. The study can be as small as a single household or garden or as large as an empire. Many methods are used in Settlement archaeology. These include pollen analysis, Geographic Information Systems, soil sampling, faunal analysis etc. Pollen, soil, faunal, and floral analysis allows the archaeologist to understand the natural vegetation of an area, vegetation that was actively grown by inhabitants, and the animal life that also lived in the area. An understanding of the plant and animal life specific to an area can lead to an analysis of the types of food available to members of the community, an understanding of the actual diet typical for a subset of a population, and site and skeletal dating.

The team of Florence University carried out an archaeological survey at Uşaklı Höyük, the largest site by area on the upper course of the Eğri Öz Dere, north of the Kerkenes Dağ, and its catchment area within a 5km range [1]. The aim of the research was to attempt to determine the date of occupation at the site and place it in a wider regional and chronological context, pinpointing the presence of further nearby sites and the development of settlement pattern over the course of time [2]. Combining extensive and intensive methods and varying sampling strategies, mounded sites, fields, grazing land, uplands and valley floors were explored over the course of five work seasons [2.1]. Along with collecting archaeological materials, focused scraping operations on the steep slope of the high mound were planned in order to obtain more information on the settlement sequence. An intensive sampling strategy of all the artefacts relating to the main topographical or surveyed units had the initial aim of obtaining a detailed scatter of the different categories of finds. In each of the surveyed units we marked, mapped and picked up all of the artefacts found on the surface. This systematic collection yielded a sufficient amount of pottery to identify the ware and shape groups and, accordingly, to date the occupation of the site in terms of wide chronological periods [2.2]. Moreover, the dispersal of specific categories of materials provided an indication of areas where some of these periods may be better documented [2.3]. The surveying and collecting carried out in the field enabled us to sketch a rough history of settlement in the area, from the Late Chalcolithic to the Ottoman period [3]. According to our results, the site of Uşaklı shows an intensive phase of occupation dating to the 2nd millennium BC, and evidence for a significant settlement dating to the 1st millennium BC [4]. - Özetçe - Arkeolojik araştırmalar: yöntem ve buluntular. Floransa Üniversitesi’ne bağlı bir ekip tarafından gerçekleştirilen arkeolojik araştırmalar, Eğriöz deresinin yukarı çığırı boyunca ve Kerkenes Dağı’nın kuzeyinde yer alan ve bölgedeki en geniş yüzölçümüne sahip sit olma özelliğini taşıyan Uşaklı Höyük ile onu çevreleyen 5 km yarıçaplı havzası üzerinde odaklanmıştır [1]. Araştırmanın hedefi, sit yakınında sonraki dönemlerde başka yerleşmelerin de gözlendiğine ve yerleşim düzeninin zaman içerisindeki gelişimine dikkat çekerek, sit kapsamındaki yerleşmeyi tarihlenmek ve daha geniş bir bölgesel ve kronolojik bağlam içerisinde değerlenmektir [2]. Yaygın ve yoğun yöntemleri birleştirmek ve farklı örnekleme stratejilerinden yararlanmak suretiyle tümsekli araziler, tarlalar, otlaklar, yaylalar ve alçak vadiler beş çalışma sezonu boyunca dikkatle araştırılmıştır [2.1]. Arkeolojik buluntuların toplanmasına en olarak, yüksek höyüğün dik yamacı boyunca gerçekleştirilen odaklı yüzey kazıma operasyonları ile yerleşim sekansına dair daha fazla bilgi elde edilmesi planlanmıştır. Başlıca topografik veya araştırmaya tâbi ünitelerle ilişkilendirilen tüm artefaktları kapsayan yoğun bir örnekleme stratejisi ile, öncelikle farklı buluntu kategorilerinin ayrıntılı bir saçılımını elde edebilmek hedeflenmiştir. Araştırılan her bir ünite için yüzeyden elde edilen tüm artefaktlar işaretlenmiş, haritalandırılmış ve toplanmıştır. Bu sistematik buluntu toplama işlemi sayesinde teşhis edilerek şekillere göre gruplandırılmak için yeterli sayıda çanak çömlek ele geçirilmiş olup, buradan hareketle alandaki yerleşmenin daha geniş bir kronolojik dönem içerisinde tarihlendirilmesi mümkün olmuştur [2.2]. Buna ek olarak, belirli kategorilerdeki buluntuların dağılım düzeni, tarihi dönemlerden bazıları- nın daha iyi tespit edilmesinin mümkün olacağı alanların varlığına işaret etmektedir [2.3]. Yürütülen araştırma ve toplama çalışmaları sayesinde, alanın yerleşim tarihinin genel hatlarıyla Geç Kalkolitik Çağı ile Osmanlı Dönemi arasında uzandığı belirlenmiştir [3]. Elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda, Uşaklı sitinin M.Ö II. milenyuma uzanan yoğun bir yerleşim sürecinden geçtiğini ve M.Ö I. milenyuma tarihlendirilebilen önemli bir yerleşim düzeninin varlığına dair kanıtlar sunduğunu söylemek mümkündür [4].

The interest of the present generation in the archaeological sites and heritage of hundreds years ago has been increasing day by day. In view of this interest of the present generation, the archaeological survey and exploration is also getting importance. The selection of a specific area and historic period is very important at the beginning of the archaeological survey and exploration. Then the aims and objectives of this survey and exploration are to be decided. Archaeological survey and exploration work is performed by a few steps.

Geoarchaeology is the archaeological subfield that focuses on archaeological information retrieval and problem solving utilizing the methods of geological investigation. Archaeological recovery and analysis are already geoarchaeological in the most fundamental sense because buried remains are contained within and removed from an essentially geological context. Yet geoarchaeological research goes beyond this simple relationship and attempts to build collaborative links between specialists in archaeology and the earth sciences to produce new knowledge about past human behavior using the technical information and methods of the geosciences. The principal goals of geoarchaeology lie in understanding the relationships between humans and their environment. These goals include (1) how cultures adjust to their ecosystem through time, (2) what earth science factors were related to the evolutionary emergence of humankind, and (3) which methodological tools involving analysis of sediments and landforms, documentation and explanation of change in buried materials, and measurement of time will allow access to new aspects of the past. This encyclopedia defines terms, introduces problems, describes techniques, and discusses theory and strategy, all in a format designed to make specialized details accessible to the public as well as practitioners. It covers subjects in environmental archaeology, dating, materials analysis, and paleoecology, all of which represent different sources of specialist knowledge that must be shared in order to reconstruct, analyze, and explain the record of the human past. It will not specifically cover sites, civilizations, and ancient cultures, etc., that are better described in other encyclopedias of world archaeology.

My research has shown that the type of regional archaeological data analysis required by landscape archaeological approaches is an area where both theory and method are still in their infancy. High-level theories about the occurrence, scope, and effects of processes such as centralization, urbanization, and Hellenization/Romanization cannot yet be supported by middle range theory, which itself cannot be developed until the basic business of generating information of sufficient quality about the archaeological record has been tackled. Currently, archaeological data can be made to fit almost any interpretation generated, ultimately, on the basis of the ancient written sources. If we are to escape from this selfreinforcing cycle, research should perhaps no longer be focused on the classical themes generated by culture-historical approaches, but should seek its own proper field of operation. In the area of methods and methodology, I have demonstrated the pervasive influence of systematic research and visibility biases on the patterns that are present in the archaeological data generated over the past 50 years or so. There are mechanisms at work, both in the traditional archaeological interpretation of limited numbers of excavated sites and historical sources, and in the landscape archaeological approach, that cause the systematic undervaluation of unobtrusive remains. The significance of systematic biases in both the coarse site-based data sets resulting from desktop and ‘topographic’ studies and the more detailed site-based or ‘continuous’ data resulting from intensive field surveys has become much clearer as a result of the studies reported here. This should have practical consequences for the ways in which we study the existing archaeological record, plan future landscape archaeological research, and conduct field surveys. Site databases, the traditional starting point for regional archaeological studies, can no longer be taken at face value; rather, they require careful source criticism before being used to support specific arguments and hypotheses about settlement and land use dynamics. My studies have also shown that future data collection, whether through field survey, excavation or other methods, has to take place in a much more methodical manner if we are to produce data that are sufficiently standardized to be successfully exchanged, compared, and interpreted by others – guidelines for which should become embodied in an international standard defining ‘best practice in landscape archaeology’.

Productive applications of geophysics to anthropological questions in American archaeology necessarily involve specific research questionsoragendas.While only some anthropologicalquestions can beaddressed by shallowgeophysics, thesetechniquesprovideanopportunity toaddresssomeimportantquestionsthat arefundamental toarchaeology. One such agenda is the investigation of ‘persistent places’, which is rooted in anthropological inquiry andwhich canbeinvestigated, at least in part, by shallowgeophysical techniques.For the next stageinthe use of remote sensing thatgoesbeyondmereprospection, researchagendasmust beclearlylinkedwithbroader theoreticalconceptsofwhat weterminquiry-basedarchaeogeophysics.Specificallywith regardto theapplicationofgeophysicsto the studyofpersistent places, weproposefourcategoriesof research that relate tothemeaning, context andchangingfunctionof such places. These categories include: construction variation, continuity and discontinuity in the use of space, studying naturaland/orculturallandscapemodificationsover timeand space, and constanciesintheuse of spaceandarchitecture at the regional level. In order to illustrate these points, we provide examples fromsites in Mexico and the USAthat represent different time periods (2500 BC to AD 1000), adaptations (hunter^gatherers to intensive agriculturists), and levels of socio-political complexity (egalitarianto stratified societies).The use ofgeophysics at these persistent places contributes to our understanding of changes in the use of space and architecture through time.