Gary Nobles Discussion

5.0 Discussion

One aspect of the questionnaire which was not fully analysed was the results of the full
questionnaire; in this the users were also asked to view a series of graphs displaying
inclination then distance and followed by elevation. After this they were shown plans of the
horizons, to all of these the user was asked if they thought this indicated a circular far horizon.
33 people fully completed this version of the questionnaire; definition 2 was disregarded as
only 5 people responded to this. No significance testing was applied to these results due to the
low numbers of responses; however a few curious points can be made. These results were
classified by looking at which category, circular or not circular, had a majority. 13 and 16
people selected definitions 1 and 3 respectively, table 10 displays these results. The following
inferences have no statistical foundation; they are just for general comment.

Table 10:
Definition 1 Definition 3
Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Panorama Y N n n N Y Y N Y N = y = Y Y Y
Inclination Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N N
Distance y N N y Y y N N y N N Y Y Y N N
Elevation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y n Y
Plan N N Y N N n n y N N Y N N N n N
Y = large majority (>60%); y = majority (>51%); (=) = equal (50%); n = minority
(<49%); N = large majority (<40%) – In relation to users who thought that the far
horizon was circular

For the first definition whenever the panorama is perceived as being circular the plan is
perceived as not being circular, this too is true in relation to definition 3. This links into one of
the major critiques of GIS based analysis; GIS has a tendency of generating a ‘birds eye view’
of the world. Julian Thomas (1993:27) proposes rather than using an aerial view one could use
hermeneutic phenomenology as this does not treat the environment as an external object. This
is what this study has attempted to do, by looking at the horizon from within the environment
at a human scale it could be argued that this is an attempt to create a hermeneutic GIS looking
at the phenomenology of horizon. This is only possible due to the development of the specific
software, in this case the GRASS GIS module r.horizon. Traditional GIS could have taken a

50
Gary Nobles Discussion

viewshed analysis and created the far horizon from this, however this would only have been
based on the dichotomy between the observer point and the distance of the edges of the
viewsheds. This would have neglected the impact of inclination and elevation due to the
detached nature of this analysis. Consequently a continuous horizon line would be generated
to bound this space.

By embedding the GIS within a DEM at a human scale the study has avoided drawing
continuous boundaries, this is an attempt to re-humanise the analysis by using experimental
and phenomenological approaches. The need for this type of approach has been identified by a
number of authors notably Gillings (1996:3b), Weatley (Weatley and Gillings 2000:3-4), and
Llobera (2001:1005-6, 1996:612-22). These are constructive criticisms from within the sub-
discipline of archaeological GIS. Other, more critical stances have been taken from
archaeologists external from GIS, these most notably from phenomenology and post-
processual sources, the likes of Christopher Tilley and Julian Thomas being the some of the
most critical. Thomas notes that digital mediums lack the versatility of language, language
having the abilities of metaphor, allusiveness and ambivalence (2004:199). This author
although agreeing with this statement would also suggest that digital canvases can force the
writer to appreciate all of the complexities associated with their field of research and avoids
superfluous rhetoric.

5.0.1 Problems

There are many issues when using GIS for any analysis, the DEMs, as mentioned previously,
were created from a series of partially constructed DEMs. Contained within these were
artefacts created through the over-representation of contour lines. These could have been
filtered out; however this would have also resulted in the loss of peaks and ridges of hills, an
area of the landscape which is vital to this analysis.

A further point which has only been briefly noted (Section 2.4) is the effect of vegetation; this
effect has not been assessed in relation to this study. It could have an impact upon the horizon
levels for many reasons; obviously trees on the horizon can increase the inclination and

51
Gary Nobles Discussion

elevation values. The points of perceptual interaction could be subtly altered with trees being
visible beyond or masking an overlapping horizon, thus the distance would also be altered at
these points. The type of trees or vegetation in terms of their foliage can alter the perception of
the horizon segments; if two segments have the same foliage coverage then this could mask
their separation. If the two horizon segments have differing foliage coverings then the contrast
between them can enhance the perception of the horizon segments. As Tilley states:

“It is simply impossible to know exactly where the trees and bushes were in
relation to sites and monuments, where the flowers bloomed and the rushes
sighed in the wind” (Tilley 1994: 73).

However through palaeoecological studies it is possible to create at least general areas of

vegetation, this could be best achieved through a probability map and applying probable
viewsheds or lines of site in which these difference could be assessed. As Chapman and
Gearey (2000:316-319) have noted there is difficulty in extrapolating palaeoecological data
over vast areas. Buy trying to produce a probability map of palaeoecology then at least this
would avoid errors when conducting phenomenological investigation; this is a case upon
which Chapman and Gearey have criticised Tilley in his investigation of Bodmin Moor (Tilley
1995:48; 1996:165).

This could have a further impact upon this study, the panoramas which were created were
positioned at locations where vegetation played little role in the construction of the horizon.
This vastly limited the author with which areas could be used; specific areas which initially
were ideal on a map did not have a significantly visible horizon for a panorama. Hedges were
the main inhibiter when attempting to capture these images; hedges have had a vast impact
upon the structure of the English landscape especially after the eighteenth century as a result
of parliamentary enclosure (Hoskins 1985:46).

52
Gary Nobles Discussion

5.0.2 The software

The software for carrying out this analysis was developed by Dr Mark Lake of University
College London (Lake and Woodman 2003:689-707). It draws on the GRASS GIS module
r.los, which generates integer values for the inclination of each cell from the observation point.
It takes this raster map and calculates the far horizon, horizon type, viewshed edges and
profile. This profile is the text file which stores the information of the inclination, elevation,
distance and the azimuth at which this information is from. r.horizon reuses some information
needed in r.los, these being the coordinatate of the viewing location and maximum distance,
these two modules could be combined to produce a hybrid r.los_horizon as indicated in figure
26. This slight repetition could be avoided by implementing a script as shown in appendix X.
One improvement which could be identified, in respect to this study, is to calculate how many
parcels make up the horizon, this would be achieved by using the output of the viewshed
edges and the horizon and calculating the number of these viewshed edges on which are the
horizon cells.

A further use of r.horizon is in the construction of a total horizonshed, this would be similar to
where r.cva has been used in the calculation of a total viewshed. For the total viewshed the
viewshed is calculated for each and every cell and then either that cell has a value for its
number of visible cells or the visible cells are valued at 1. This method is applied to the
remaining cells, this creates either a raster map of the quantity of visible cells from a point or
the topographical prominence of all of the cells. Using this as a comparable methodology, the
individual cells could be valued by the quantity of cells involved in the construction of the
horizon. Alternatively the cells involved in the horizon could be valued at 1 and added
together to create a map which displays the areas of topographical prominence for horizon
construction. For further details of cumulative and total viewshed analysis see Lake et al
(1998); Wheatley (1995); and Llobera et al (2003).

53
Gary Nobles Discussion

Figure 28: Combining the funcuality of r.los and r.horizon

r.los

Parameters:
input=string
Raster map containing elevation data
output=string r.los_horizon
Raster map name for storing results
coordinate=x,y
Coordinate identifying the viewing Parameters:
location input=string
patt_map=string Raster map containing elevation data
Binary (1/0) raster map output=string
obs_elev=float Raster map name for storing results
Height of the viewing location output (horizon)=string
Default: 1.75 Raster map name for storing far horizon
max_dist=float horizon_cell=string
Max distance from the viewing point Map cell type is integer, floating point
(meters) (fp) or double precision fp
Options: 0-99999 output (horizon_type)=string
Default: 1000 Raster map name for storing horizon type
output (edges)=string
Raster map name for storing viewshed
edges
r.horizon output (profile)=string
Output text file for profile information
Parameters: coordinate=x,y
Coordinate identifying the viewing
input (viewshed)=string location
Raster map containing viewshed map patt_map=string
input (dem)=string Binary (1/0) raster map
Raster map containing elevation data obs_elev=float
output (horizon)=string Height of the viewing location
Raster map name for storing far horizon Default: 1.75
horizon_cell=string max_dist=float
Map cell type is integer, floating point Max distance from the viewing point
(fp) or double precision fp (meters)
output (horizon_type)=string Options: 0-99999
Raster map name for storing horizon type Default: 1000
output (edges)=string
Raster map name for storing viewshed
edges
output (profile)=string
Output text file for profile information
coordinate=x,y
Coordinate identifying the viewing
location
Max_dist=float
Max viewing distance in meters
options: 0.0-99999.0
default: 0

54