Measuring the relative topographic position of archaeological sites in the landscape, a case study on the Bronze Age barrows in northwest Belgium Jeroen De Reu a, * , Jean Bourgeois a , Philippe De Smedt b , Ann Zwertvaegher c , Marc Antrop d , Machteld Bats a , Philippe De Maeyer d , Peter Finke c , Marc Van Meirvenne b , Jacques Verniers c , Philippe Crombé a a Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium b Department of Soil Management, Ghent University, Coupure 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium c Department of Geology and Soil Science, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Ghent, Belgium d Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Ghent, Belgium article info Article history: Received 7 March 2011 Received in revised form 5 July 2011 Accepted 9 August 2011 Keywords: Landscape research Geographic information systems Relative topographic position Elevation percentile Difference from mean elevation Deviation from mean elevation Bronze Age barrow Belgium abstract Local topography is an important parameter determining the erection of a certain type of site on a certain location in the landscape. Despite the importance of topography in archaeological landscape research, the role of local topography has remained rather unexplored compared to other specific topographic parameters such as slope, aspect, curvature or visibility. Therefore, three methods to assess the relative topographic position of sites are applied and discussed here. The Bronze Age barrow dataset of northwest Belgium acts as the subject for this methodological case study. First, elevation percentile calculates the area that is lower than the central point within a predetermined neighborhood. Secondly, difference from mean elevation measures the relative topographic position of the central point as the difference between the elevation of this central point and the mean elevation within a predetermined neighbor- hood. And finally, deviation from mean elevation calculates the relative topographic position of the central point as the difference from mean elevation divided by the standard deviation of elevation, within a predetermined neighborhood. These three methods, each with their advantages and disad- vantages, prove to be an added value for archaeological landscape research. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In theories about the relation between archaeological sites and their surrounding landscapes, topographic position and local topography are often described as important parameters deter- mining the raising of a certain type of site (settlements, ritual and burial sites, military or defensive structures, etc.) on a certain location in the landscape. For example, Tilley (1994) mentions the importance of the location and orientation of Early Neolithic barrows in relation to the local topography and the presence of certain landscape features on the Cranborne Chase in southern England. However, his conclusions are based only on field obser- vations, thus making the strength of these conclusions rather limited and only applicable on small-scales, or as stated by Fleming (1999) in his critique on landscape phenomenology “these ‘mindset’ approaches are interesting and stimulating, but there is a risk that, without more sourcecritical rigour, they will themselves constitute a form of ‘dreaming’ ”. Despite the importance of local topography, only few examples of systematic and thorough analyses of the relative topographic position of archaeological sites or features, as part of an extensive dataset, are known. Even with the advent of new methodologies and computer applications, such as geographic information systems (GIS), local topography has remained rather unexplored. The GIS-based analyses of the (topographic) location of archaeo- logical sites in the landscape were, for example, more frequently performed as a broad range of different types of visibility (viewshed) analysis (e.g. Lake and Woodman, 2003; Llobera, 2007; Wheatley and Gillings, 2000). Among these, several studies have concerned the placement of (burial) monuments in the landscape. Studies by Fisher et al. (1997) and by Lagerås (2002) showed the deliberate placement of Bronze Age monuments so as to overlook the sea on the Scottish island of Mull and in Scania, Sweden respectively. Other studies analyzed the intervisibility or the reci- procity of view between burial monuments (Wheatley, 1995; Woodman, 2000). Woodman (2000) relates places with higher * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 93310155. E-mail address: Jeroen.DeReu@UGent.be (J. De Reu). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas 0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.005 Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 3435e3446