Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/daach

The visual landscape of rock art in Qeydu Valley in Teymare in the Central
Iranian Plateau
Ebrahim Karimi
University of Victoria BC, Canada, 3800 Finnert Rd, V8P 5C2

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Qeydu Valley is a part of the Teymare region, which contains one the largest clusters of rock art in the central
Iran Iranian Plateau. Analyzing about 495 panels in more than 100 sites, this paper is intended to provide an insight
Qeydu into the landscape of rock art in Qeydu Valley. The paper explores the intersection of rock art positioning,
Petroglyph
movement patterns, and visual landscape in the study area. Total and cumulative viewshed, cost distance, and
Landscape
Visibility
least-cost path analysis have been used to reconstruct the visibility dimension of the rock art locations in
Movement movement across the region. The total and cumulative viewshed analysis suggest that the panels showing a
hunting theme benefit from a higher degree of visibility compared to the other petroglyphs.

1. Introduction suggested for some rock art sites across the country and central Iran.
However, the lack of evidence and the absence of strong visual simi­
Landscape approaches play a vital role in rock art studies, which is larities between the petroglyphs and other archaeological materials
mainly due to the inherent characteristic of rock art as a cultural ma­ have prevented the proposal of more specific dating for rock art in the
terial fixed in landscape (Chippindale and Nash, 2004) making it country.
different than most other types of cultural materials. Being engraved on Petroglyphs have been mostly reported in semi-arid environments on
natural surfaces, rock art positioning is strongly linked to its surround­ the foothills of mountains, along seasonal water courses, and in prox­
ings and, therefore, needs to be explored in its cultural and natural imity to permanent or temporal water sources (e.g., Azandaryani and
settings (Bradley 1991). The perception of landscape is highly related to Mohammadifar 2015; Karimi and Ujang 2015). Based on the frequently
its visibility settings and movement/accessibility potentials, which are depicted hunting subject matter, hunting potential of the associated
two fundamental aspects of landscape that can be analyzed using GIS environments, the current use of the areas by local hunters, and the
tools (Lock et al., 2014). Understanding the patterns of interaction be­ presence of hunting structures mostly made in recent years or decades, it
tween landscape features and human actions can help to understand the is suggested that the production and placement of rock art could have
site selection behavior of rock art makers. Using a landscape approach, been in relation with hunting activities (e.g., Farhady 1998; Ghasrian
this paper is intended to investigate the rock art in Qeydu Valley in and Mohamadi, 2009; Karimi 2018, 2021). However, the lack of
central Iran in relation to its associated landscape. analytical approaches to the landscape of rock art is one salient gap in
Large concentrations of rock art, mainly petroglyphs, have been re­ the rock art studies of Iran. In fact, the visibility and movement patterns
ported across Iran particularly in the Central Iranian Plateau (e.g., of the landscape of rock art in Iran have never been analyzed before.
Ghasrian 2007; Karimi 2018; Karimi et al., 2020; Khosrowzadeh et al., This paper is an attempt to reconstruct the landscape of rock art in
2017) (Fig. 1). Due to the lack of stylistic sequence, a regional chro­ Qeydu Valley in Central Iran (Fig. 1) intersecting three main dimensions
nology is still not established for rock art in Central Iran. Using relative of the landscape including visibility setting, movement, and the posi­
dating approaches, a wide range of periods from the Chalcolithic (5500 tioning of the rock art in the region. In fact, the main objective of this
BCE to about 3500–3400 BCE) (e.g., Azandaryani et al., 2016), to the research is to explore how rock art positioning could be better under­
historical periods including Parthian (about 247 BCE to 224 CE) and stood in its landscape in relation to visibility setting and movement
Sassanid dynasties (about 224–651 CE) (e.g., Ghasrian 2017; Karimi patterns across the study area,. The main approach in this study is based
2021; Karimi et al., 2016; Roustaei 2007) and Islamic period (e.g., on visibility and movement models built on total and cumulative
Karimi and Ujang 2015; Khosrowzadeh et al., 2017) have been viewshed (Llobera 2003, 2007), cost distance, and least-cost path

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2024.e00358
Received 20 February 2024; Received in revised form 15 June 2024; Accepted 3 July 2024
Available online 4 July 2024
2212-0548/© 2024 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

analysis (Llobera et al., 2011; Lock et al., 2014).

Before the main discussion, the chronological periods frequently
addressed in this paper need to be explained briefly. The chronology of
Iran varies from one region to another. However, to provide a general
framework, the term prehistoric, in the context of this research, mainly
addresses the Chalcolithic period, from about 5500 BCE to about
3500–3400 BCE when the early Bronze Age started. The terms Bronze
Ages (about 3400–3300 BCE to 1400-1300 BCE) and Iron Ages (about
1400–1300 BCE to 700-500 BCE) have also been used whenever those
specific time-periods were intended. The term “historical” period/pe­
riods, in this dissertation, is mainly used to address the Parthian (about
247 BCE to 224 CE) and the Sassanid (about 224–651 CE) periods.
“Middle Islamic Centuries” corresponds 10th to 15th centuries
(1000–1500 AC), and “Recent Islamic centuries” is used to address the
Safavid dynasty (1501–1722 AC) and afterward.

2. Study area and the petroglyphs

Qeydu Valley is situated in Teymare at the western end of the Central

Iranian Plateau where it almost intersects the Zagros Mountains (Fig. 1).
The valley contains one main cluster of rock art in Teymare, which is
well-known in the rock art studies of Iran because of the large concen­
trations of rock art identified in the area (Farhady 1998). A permanent
river, called Teymare, with a low level of water, flows through the
valley. The petroglyphs in Teymare were initially reported by Farhady
(1998), who brought attention to the large concentrations of petro­
glyphs in this part of the country for the first time. Subsequent publi­
cations were made by Naserifard (2009, 2016) and Jamali (2015).
However, the region had never been studied systematically by archae­
ologists as the sites were not even mapped before this project. The
fieldwork conducted during this research study resulted in the identifi­
cation of a large number of petroglyphs that were not reported before.
The previously reported sites were also re-identified and systematically
recorded (Fig. 2). Fig. 2. The distribution of rock art sites on an elevation surface.
The fieldwork covered the main valley called Qeydu (Figs. 2–3) and a
sub-valley known as Darih-Teet (Figs. 2 and 4) situated on the eastrn on the rock surfaces on the ridges of the valley where the Teymare River
side of the region. The purpose of including the sub-valley in the field­ flows (Fig. 3). Almost all petroglyphs were made on “schist” rocks,
work was to test whether there were any petroglyphs situated in the sub- which are available all over the area. It seems that most petroglyphs
valley or not. 495 panels of petroglyphs consisting of about 4600 were made by pecking, which mostly resulted in images with an
number of images across more than 100 locations were recorded during adequate well-discernible depth. A small number of petroglyphs were
the fieldwork. The petroglyphs of Qeydu Valley are mostly distributed also made by scratching; however, the technique of production was not

Fig. 1. A map showing the location of some major petroglyph sites in Iran.

2
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

small number of petroglyphs.

About 102 abstract markings with about 38 types of depictions were
identified, which, in some cases resemble those identified in other sites
in Iran (e.g., Azandaryani et al., 2016; Karimi 2020), across Central Asia
(Rogozhinskiy 2011; Vanwezer et al., 2021), and other neighboring
countries including Azerbaijan (e.g., Farajova 2011; Sigari et al., 2020).
Cupules were also identified on 32 panels, which were mostly distrib­
uted across the Qeydu Valley as only a few cupules were identified in
Darih-Teet, which is higher in elevation than Qeydu Valley. Altogether,
inscriptions were engraved on 31 panels and consisted mostly of recent
graffiti made of personal names, which, in some cases, were accompa­
nied by a date “not” older than “a few decades ago.” In some other cases,
they were Islamic religious names.
Illustrated on 135 panels, hunting subject matter is the most frequent
narrative theme in the study area (Fig. 6). The panels show both indi­
vidual hunters targeting an ibex and hunting groups made up of a few
archers or horse riders. A few hunting panels contain canine motifs,
Fig. 3. A view of Qeydu Valley in Teymare, Central Iran, facing north. which, in some cases, may represent dogs accompanying hunters. In
some panels, anthropomorphic depictions with hands on the waists or
with open arms, possibly driving animals toward the hunters, were also
made in association with hunters.
There is not a strong stylistic homogeneity in the rock art of Qeydu
Valley. Accordingly, there is no regional “stylistic sequence” in the rock
art of the region, which is an obstacle to developing a relative chro­
nology for rock art in Qeydu Valley and Central Iran. In terms of ico­
nography and subject matter, the petroglyphs of Qeydu Valley show
some general similarities to each other, as well as to the rock art in the
other parts of the country, including central Iran. However, they still do
not show adequate strong stylistic uniformity and do not represent any
distinct stylistic sequence.
Despite the limitations addressed above, based on the visual features
of some panels, iconography, and typology of the petroglyphs including
horse-rider depictions, abstract markings, and the presence of Islamic
inscriptions some petroglyphs have been placed in a historic to recent
Islamic context, possibly from the Middle to the Recent Islamic cen­
turies. Some panels particularly horse-riders, may also depict historic
Fig. 4. A view of the end of Darih Teet, where a large concentration of pet­ rock art, possibly Sassanid (about 224–651 AD), based on the head
roglyphs was identified. covers, which resemble those in the Sassanid art. Additionally, the
identification of Pahlavi inscriptions (Farhady 1998; Nasserifard Face­
recognized in some cases. Caprine, mostly ibex, is the most frequent type book post, June 2020), the writing system of the Sassanid kingdom, in
of depiction forming about 60 percent of the art (Figs. 5–6). A small other parts of the Teymare area, suggest that the region was in use
number of quadruped depictions were illustrated with branched horns during the historic periods. There are anthropomorphic representations,
resembling cervids. A few of the quadrupeds were depicted with large including horse riders and pedestrians (Fig. 7), with a long projection on
bodies and crescent-resembling horns suggestive of bovids. Canine and the head, possibly depicting a helmet or a head cover, which looks
felines were also illustrated on some panels, but they only formed a similar to human depictions with a head cover in the Persian Islamic
paintings of the 13th to 17th centuries (e.g., Gray 1961: 128, 131). This
relative age is also reinforced by the recent Islamic inscriptions engraved
on some panels (e.g., Fig. 7e).
The association of abstract markings and Islamic inscriptions, ab­
stract markings engraved on the walls of Islamic and historic construc­
tions, and ethnographic evidence (Fig. 8) suggest that most abstract
markings in Qeydu Valley have been possibly made in the recent Islamic
centuries and cannot be older than the historic times at most. Abstract
markings similar to those identified in Qeydu Valley have been identi­
fied in Armenia (e.g., Tokhatyan 2015, p. 188) and across Central Asia
and Mongolia where they have been attributed from the Bronze and Iron
Ages to about the 10th to 20th centuries (e.g., Hermann, 2020; Rogoz­
hinskiy 2011; Sigari et al., 2020). In Azerbaijan, they are engraved on
the walls of two Islamic/Safavid (1501–1722 A C) caravansaries of
Sangchal and Miecik (Farajova 2011; Sigari et al., 2020) in Goboustan.
However, there is no adequate evidence for any age older than the Is­
lamic periods for those in the Qeydu Valley though the presence of
Bronze Age and Iron Age abstract markings in Qeydy and Central Iran
remains a possibility, which requires further evidence for a more
Fig. 5. Examples of caprine depictions, mostly ibexes, in the rock art of in-depth discussion. The relative dating of abstract markings has been
Qeydu Valley. discussed in detail in Karimi (2020).

3
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Fig. 6. Panels depicting hunting themes in Qeydu Valley.

Fig. 7. Panels illustrating anthropomorphic depictions with a head cover suggesting an Islamic age, possibly middle to recent Islamic centuries.

4
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

3.2. Landscape and Geographic Information Systems

Geographic Information Systems/GIS and landscape approaches are

closely connected together as it is even proposed that this is just the
landscape perspectives that could take full advantage of the GIS capa­
bilities in the context of archaeology (Green 1990; Hu 2011). GIS
analysis could bring new insights into the spatial behaviors of past
participants of the landscape by means of spatial analytical tools, mainly
viewshed and cost surface analysis, which can identify visual and
movement patterns across a landscape. Using visibility analysis, land­
scape can be investigated from different points of view and even
examine the possible views of the past land users over a particular area
(Zvelebil et al., 1992), making a bridge between archaeological land­
scape studies, human dimensions of landscape, and phenomenological
approaches (Gillings 2012; Wheatly and Gillings 2002; Rennell 2012).
Fig. 8. The religious term “Yā Ali” associated with a plus-shaped image and As Lock et al. (2014) discuss, “social context” is another concept related
depictions of a circle with a dot in the center, resembling abstract markings in to the notion of visual landscape as cultural signs would impact the way
the rock art of Iran including Qeydu Valley, on a nomadic tent in Kirmanshāh in that a landscape can be used in terms of its movement and visual
western Iran (Photo credit: Gholamhosein Mohebi).
capabilities.
Besides visibility, movement is another core concept that formed the
Some studies compared the petroglyphs in the northwest of Iran (e. landscape approach in the current study. Movement can be defined as a
g., Rafifar 2005; Binandeh 2016) with those in Armenia and Azerbaijan process by which human agents organize their landscape (Llobera et al.,
and attributed the petroglyphs to the same age, the Bronze and Iron 2011). Archaeological features including roads, field boundaries, and
ages. Although this is a possibility, there is still no reliable evidence to terrain topography are some indicators of movement and the order of
put some petroglyphs of Qeydu Valley in a dating context older than the landscape (Gibson, 2007; Llobera et al., 2011). Verhagen et al. (2019:
historic times. Farhady (1998) has attributed some petroglyphs to pre­ 219) also define movement in the context of the affordances of the
history; however, he has not provided an in-depth dating discussion nor environment, in which moving is a potential provided to an individual
provided adequate evidence. A chalcolithic site was even identified in within a specific environmental setting to travel from one location to
Qeydu Valley in close proximity to a concentration of petroglyphs another. Rock art can also be mentioned as such type of indicator as their
(Fig. 2), which raises the possibility of late chalcolithic petroglyphs in distribution across an area can give us an understanding of the potential
the valley as some “engraved lines” are specific to this site, which was use and movement patterns across a region. Walking from one point to
not identified in any other site across the region. However, there is still another, people would be affected by land features such as slope,
no adequate evidence to establish a reliable dating correlation between elevation, vegetation, water sources, and the availability of resources
the petroglyphs and the late chalcolithic site in Qeydu Valley. (Anderson 2012) that they might need and consider in taking a move­
ment direction among the other possibilities. As Llobera et al. (2011)
3. Landscape, visibility, and movement discuss, the landscape would become ordered and shaped in relation to
aimed destinations and the journey toward them. These destinations are
3.1. Definition and theoretical direction not fixed or constant, but they are rather dynamic and subject to change
(Llobera et al., 2011).
In brief, Landscape archaeology is defined as the study of the cultural Modeling visibility along movement is a GIS-landscape approach
and environmental variables that affect humans’ interaction with their that has been continuously used to reconstruct the structure of a land­
surrounding landscape (Hu 2011; Ingold 1993). One main theme of this scape and how it was used in the past (Lock et al., 2014). These GIS
approach is the idea that landscape is permeated with meaning, and it is methods, visibility and movement, are emphasized as approaches to
not a mere surface or an objective container for events, but rather it is an humanize digital models (Lock et al., 2014). Rather than merely being
interactive platform for human activities and a medium involved in an objective calculation of the topographic/physical attributes of a po­
action (Chapman 2006; Tilley 1994, 2004). Landscape is in a constant tential environment, this approach puts archaeologists in a more active
process of recreation through physical and metaphysical constructions, position to better understand and experience a landscape (Lock et al.,
which constantly affect the interaction between landscape and its users 2014) as visibility and movement are two fundamental components that
(Chapman 2006). It has even been approached as a text (Bellentani form our perception of an environment (Ingold 2021). Our visual un­
2016: 79) as people may perceive the same landscape in different ways derstanding of a landscape could be highly dependent on how we move
and make different meanings and interpretations according to their own across and in different directions and see different portions of that re­
cultural knowledge and values (Bender 1992, 2006; Bellentani 2016; gion. Movement and visibility are interconnected, which makes the
Chapman 2006). visibility patterns even more complicated (Llobera 2007) as the visibility
As implied by Acevedo et al. (2019) and the discussion provided setting would be constantly changed when one moves from one location
above, landscape can be defined as a platform made of two interacting to another. In brief, visual perception requires continuous movement
dimensions, the environment, and the cultural landscape. The environ­ within an area as our perception of a landscape is made through a
mental dimension is the physical land with all its topographic features constant change of scenery (Ingold 2021).
and resources, and the cultural landscape is made by human agents
including all meanings assigned and modifications applied to the land. 3.3. A brief note on the limitations of GIS applications in landscape
From this viewpoint, archaeological sites including rock art can be analysis
approached as cultural modifications that have been placed in the
landscape in locations intended by human agents depending on their Despite the possibilities that GIS has brought in landscape ap­
sociocultural needs. proaches, it has its own theoretical and technical limitations as there is
still a tension between the archaeologists that defend the use of spatial
technologies including GIS to analyze cultural materials and past land­
scapes and the researchers that are concerned with its theoretical

5
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

development (Church et al., 2000; Gillings 2012; Van Leusen, 1999; to identify routes of travel across a landscape (Conolly and Lake 2006;
Wheatley, 2000). The quality of Digital Elevation Models, the effects of Wienhold 2014). Cost distance and least-cost path tools have also been
vegetation on the viewshed, which requires understanding of the pale­ used in rock art landscape studies (e.g., Hartley and Vawser 1998;
oenvironment that may not be available in some research studies, O’Sullivan 2019; Robinson and Wienhold 2016; Robinson 2010; Wien­
object-background clarity, and the capability of the spatial software hold 2014)
used to calculate the viewshed and cost-distance are among the major
concerns widely discussed in the GIS archaeology literature (e.g., 4.2. Total viewshed
Wheatley and Gillings 2000; Wheatley 2000; Van Leusen, 1999; Ver­
hagen 2018). Another point of concern in visibility studies is that Directly related to the concept of viewshed is the notion of “total
although analyses rely on reciprocity, perfect reciprocal visibility be­ viewshed,” which Llobera (2003, 2010) has defined as a cumulative
tween the observer point and the observed phenomenon does not always viewshed calculated from every single cell of a DEM model. Unlike a
exist (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). Rock art is even considered a visu­ single viewshed, which contains binary values of visible and not visible,
ally elusive feature in the calculation of its visibility setting (Gaffney in a total viewshed, each cell’s value represents the number of times that
et al., 1996; Wheatley and Gillings 2000) as it is discussed that being the cell would be visible from every other cell of a digital elevation
able to see something can be totally different from recognizing what is surface. A cumulative total viewshed is an effective way to reconstruct
the feature that an observer is looking at. the visual scape or visual structure of a landscape (Llobera 2003). It
The use of GIS in archaeology including the calculation of cost dis­ provides a visibility pattern of an entire landscape resulting from its
tance and least-cost path has been criticized for being subject to envi­ physical topography (Llobera et al., 2010). A total viewshed can be used
ronmental determinism (e.g., Gaffney and Van Leusen 1995; Herzog to estimate where a feature may have its greatest visibility in a landscape
2013; Van Leusen, 2002). One potential constrain is that movement is (Llobera 2003). It can help to make comparisons in search of patterns of
not always a function of the topographic features and energetic effi­ visibility (e.g., Acevedo et al., 2019; Dungan et al., 2018). Cumulative
ciency as socio-cultural parameters (Verhagen et al., 2019: 229) and and total viewshed analysis can open up new windows on how rock art
symbolic or cultural uses of a landscape such as the sacred or religious sites are embedded in relation to landscape environmental and cultural
importance of some areas or locations could have also affected the features, resources, and pathways (Acevedo et al., 2019).
patterns of movement (Anderson 2012). As viewshed analysis, one Both total and cumulative viewshed analyses are intended to
major problem in cost distance and least-cost path models is the limi­ reconstruct the visual landscape of Qeydu Valley and to analyze the
tations caused by the GIS tools and the way they calculate slope and use visibility of the sites in relation to the topography of the valley. The
of DEM models, which are not adequately effective for cost surface and analyses test if there is any correlation between the location of the sites
least-cost path analysis (Verhagen et al., 2019: 227–230). Additionally, and the frequently visible parts/areas of the landscape. The visibility
LCPs are a line of travel calculated between a start and end point, which analysis can also help to discuss whether the petroglyphs’ positioning
may do not necessarily comply with the patterns of movement in the was intended for a public or for an intended limited audience (e.g.,
past (Verhagen et al., 2019). Intxaurbe et al., 2020; Robinson 2006, 2010; Sigari and Forti 2022).
Despite these limitations, the use of viewshed and cost-distance tools
has been widely used in landscape approaches as an effective positive 4.3. Movement and visibility
contribution to archaeology (Wheatley 2004) as they can help to reach a
more developed understanding of the ways that past land users could Combined with cost surface tools (Llobera et al., 2010; Mlekuz 2014;
have contributed to the use of the landscapes in terms of visibility and Robinson 2006, 2010), visibility analysis can be used to study the dis­
movement dimensions. Viewshed has even been addressed as the most tribution of the sites in the visual setting of the landscape in relation to
unique and valuable GIS contribution to the archaeological landscape the potential patterns of movement (Lock et al., 2014; Stucky 1998;
studies (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). Wernke et al., 2017). Total and cumulative viewshed, in combination
with cost surface, least-cost path, and the distribution of the sites across
4. Methods the landscape of Qeydu Valley are used to reconstruct the visibility as­
pects of the landscape. This approach, visibility in movement, can help
4.1. Defining tools us to perceive both dimensions, visual setting, and movement patterns,
of the landscape from the viewpoint of a subject.
The analyses made in this research are based on viewshed, cost path, Isotropic and anisotropic are two types of accumulative cost surfaces
and least-cost path GIS tools. ArcMap 10.3 GIS application was used to that can be used to model the cost of surface using GIS (Wienhold, 2014:
conduct the analysis. Viewshed is a common tool in archaeological 156). Isotropic costs are those independent of the direction of movement
studies to analyze the visual landscape and the viewshed of the sites (Herzog, 2013: 5). Typical examples of isotropic costs are those based on
across the associated area (e.g., Llobera 2003; Van Leusen, 2002; factors such as soil attributes, vegetation, lakes, etc. Unlike isotropic
Wheatley 1995). It helps to investigate a landscape from different points costs, anisotropic costs are dependent on the direction of movement
of view and examine the possible views of the past land users over a (Herzog, 2013; Wienhold, 2014).
particular landscape in relation to its cultural dimension including rock One important anisotropic cost is “slope,” which is the most frequent
art (e.g., Gaffney et al., 1996; Luís et al., 2015; Robinson 2006; Robinson environmental factor used in cost distance analysis (Verhagen et al.,
2010; Winterbottom and Long 2006; Zvelebil et al., 1992). 2019: 221) as, sometimes, the term “anisotropic” cost refers to the costs
To examine human patterns of land use, it is important to understand based on the slope (Conoly and Lake 2006; Herzog, 2013: 5). In this
the potential constraints of movement through a region (Conolly and research, slope was the main source of cost in the estimation of the cost
Lake 2006). The “cost surface” and “least-cost path” are GIS tools surface, which was later used to calculate the “Least-Cost Paths.” The
frequently used for this purpose in archaeology (Conolly and Lake 2006) resulting LCPs were also verified by field observations and ethnographic
and rock art studies (Wienhold and Robinson 2017). The “cost surface” evidence as they were compatible with the pathways still in use by local
tool can analyze the patterns of human movement across a landscape by pedestrians’ movement patterns across the landscape for herding and
estimating the amount of energy that one uses to travel across a region hunting purposes.
providing us with an estimation of the accessibility of the sites in the “Least-cost path” was calculated for Qeydu Valley and Darih Teet
area (Fairén-Jiménez 2007). The “least-cost surface” estimates the op­ (Fig. 9) to reconstruct the potential movement patterns across the
timum path from a point of departure to a destination, which itself re­ landscape by identifying a potential optimum way of travel across the
quires a cost surface to be calculated (Van Leusen, 2002). It is also used area. A large concentration of petroglyphs located at the end of Darih-

6
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Teet (Figs. 4 and 9) was used as one point of departure toward the main
valley, Qeydu, to calculate the LCP for Darih-Teet. Two points posi­
tioned at both ends of Qeydu Valley, in proximity to rock art sites, were
used to calculate the least-cost path for Qeydu Valley.
To reconstruct the visual landscape, one total viewshed map of the
entire study area as well as a cumulative viewshed map from the
viewpoint of the valleys, Qeydu and Darih-Teet, toward the landscape
were calculated. The cumulative viewshed map could give us a better
understanding of the visibility of the sites from the viewpoint of the
valley/valleys (Acevedo et al., 2019) and the potential pathways across
the landscape as both LCPs and the current local pathways were situated
across the valleys. The efforts made by Lock et al. (2014) and (Stucky
1998) are two effective examples that used the same approach of
calculating the viewshed/visibility of the landscape from a least-cost
path. One observation point was created for each raster cell, which is
required to calculate the total viewshed of the entire area (Fig. 10a). The
offset point was set to 1.7 m, which is the average optimum height of an
adult (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). A layer of observation points
distributed along the “Least-cost paths” and across Qeydu Valley and the
sub-valley/Darih-Teet were also made (Fig. 10b), which was used to
calculate the cumulative viewshed map from the viewpoint of the val­
leys toward the landscape.

5. Results and discussion

Both LCPs, Qeyud and Darih-Teet valleys, are highly compatible with
the current use of the landscape and the local pathways, the topography
of the landscape, and the distribution of the petroglyphs across the re­
gion. The presence of the sites and even possible recent herding and
hunting structures across the valleys suggest that moving along the
valleys was one main pattern of movement across the landscape, which
is compatible with the least-cost paths.
The total viewshed was made to test if there is any correlation be­
tween the distribution of the petroglyphs and the visibility structure of
the landscape. About 32 percent of the petroglyphs were situated in
Fig. 9. The least-cost paths calculated for Qeydu Valley and Darih Teet illus­ medium to high frequently visible parts of the landscape (Figs. 11 and
trated on a cost distance surface. 12), while about 68 percent of the rock art was situated in low visible
portions of the region (Fig. 12). Only 14 percent of the petroglyphs were
distributed in highly visible parts of the area. However, this group is
mostly situated in high-cost parts of the landscape as the cost surface

Fig. 10. Observation points used in the viewshed analyses: a. A sample part of the study area with observation points per each raster cell used to calculate a “total”
viewshed map of the region, b. Observation points distributed along the “least-cost paths” and across the main valley/Qeydu and Darih Teet used to calculate a
“cumulative” viewshed map of the study area from the viewpoint of the valleys toward the rest of the landscape and the sites.

7
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

map suggests (Fig. 9). Therefore, although those petroglyphs were

positioned in areas more frequently visible, they are less accessible in
terms of energy expenditure and harder for potential observers to
recognize them because of their longer distance and higher elevation in
relation to the potential movement patterns. In fact, this higher level of
visibility is at the larger “regional” scale of the total viewshed analysis.
When it comes to “local” visibility, most petroglyphs are not visible to
potential audiences or people traveling across the landscape. This aspect
of visibility analysis is also addressed by Lock et al. (2014).
Altogether, the total viewshed map of the petroglyphs does not show
a strong visibility pattern for the distribution of the petroglyphs across
the landscape. Therefore, a cumulative viewshed map (Fig. 13) was
calculated from the viewpoint of the Qeydu Valley and Darih Teet using
the observation points distributed in the valleys (Fig. 10), where the
LCPs and current local pathways are situated. This cumulative viewshed
(Fig. 13) provides a deeper understanding of the visibility structure of
the landscape in relation to human use and movement patterns as they
Fig. 11. A view of a rock art site in Qeydu Valley situated in a moderately to are calculated from the viewpoint of the “valleys,” which could have
highly visible part of the landscape. been used as pathways based on the least-cost paths and cost surface
analysis (Fig. 9), the current use of the landscape by local herders and
hunters, the topography of the landscape, and the positioning of the
petroglyphs.
Three factors are required to consider a panel visible and accessible
in terms of its surrounding topographic setting: 1) vertical bedrock
orientation (Acevedo et al., 2019, 2) low-cost accessibility, and 3) high
degree of visibility from the nearby land. A vertical surface would have a
higher degree of visibility compared to a horizontal panel. The cost
distance is more complicated than the others because the cost of travel
depends on the way one travels across the area. To chance on at least one
or a few panels, one needs to walk very close to the ridges/walls of the

Fig. 13. A cumulative viewshed calculated using a subset of the observation

Fig. 12. Petroglyphs on the total viewshed map of the study area.
points distributed in the valleys (Fig. 10).

8
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

valley and even up and down the foothills, which is very unlikely as the valley, one would see all or most of the petroglyphs situated along
people may take different travel ways across a landscape. Moreover, a the valley (Fig. 15). This pattern is highly compatible with the move­
pathway all along and very close to the ridges of the valley is very un­ ment patterns across Darih Teet as the least-cost path almost fits the
likely and incompatible with the least-cost path and the landscape’s current local pathway (Fig. 9). All the petroglyphs have been distributed
topography. Altogether, out of 495 panels in the area, only 30 have all along the “least-cost path (Fig. 9).” Although the location of the sites
the criteria listed above. Out of these 30 panels, 22 have less than 10 does not show a high degree of visibility in the total and the cumulative
depictions, which is very low compared to the total number of petro­ viewshed maps, single viewshed analysis calculated for each site con­
glyphs, about 4600 images. firms that they are visible from the nearby/immediate land/cells (e.g.,
From the viewpoint of the valley/cumulative viewshed (Fig. 13), Fig. 15).
about 64 percent of the petroglyphs have been situated in low visibility, The “total” viewshed raster shows that only in two areas—at the end
and about 36 percent of the rock art has been situated in medium to high of Darih Teet and on the eastern domain of Qeydu Valley—the sites offer
visible portions of the landscape, which is slightly different than the a higher degree of visibility compared to the other petroglyph locations
total viewshed. Out of 89 locations with a “hunting” scene, 32 are placed (Fig. 12). This suggests “no” strong correlation exists between the most
in the highly visible areas of the landscape, which is about 36 percent of visible portions of the landscape and the positioning of the petroglyphs.
the total hunting panels. Nine locations of these highly visible hunting The most frequently visible areas of the landscape are mainly positioned
panels are situated in high-cost parts of the region, which means they are at a higher elevation than the rock art sites. This situation can be
not effectively accessible. Altogether and compared to the other petro­ explained in the context of cost distance and least-cost path analyses, as
glyphs, a significant number of the hunting panels have been situated in the areas with the highest visibility are mostly situated in the high-cost
high/frequently visible parts of the landscape (Fig. 13). parts of the landscape (Figs. 3, 11, and 12). The distribution of the
This positioning of the hunting panels may indicate the patterns of petroglyphs mainly on the ridges of the valley shows that the foothills of
use of the landscape in relation to hunting activities. Based on ethno­ the landscape were highly active areas in terms of sociocultural activ­
graphic and historical sources (Farhady 1998), we know that the Tey­ ities, as a large number of petroglyphs and other cultural features, both
mare area was in use for hunting purposes even until recently. Caprine, ancient and recent, are positioned on these areas of the valley and in an
particularly ibex is the most common species illustrated in hunting accessible distance from the valley, which provides easier pathways as
panels, which had large populations in the area until a few decades ago. indicated by the least-cost paths.
Ibexes have a tendency to higher elevations and steep slopes (Grignolio In addition to this is the size of the depictions, degree of patination,
et al., 2004), which could explain the positioning of most hunting panels and nearby landform/topography, which could also have affected the
in those areas of Qeydu Valley, where hunting may have taken place. degree of visibility of the petroglyphs to the potential land users. De­
pictions with a larger size would have a better chance of being viewed by
5.1. Darih Teet a potential passenger. As discussed before, the distance between a per­
son and the rock art panel also plays a significant role as the petroglyphs
The topography of Darih Teet in a higher elevation with steep slopes in Darih-Teet would benefit from a better degree of visibility as the
on its ridges has turned it into an enclosure (Fig. 14), which is not width of the valley is much smaller compared to the main valley. The
adequately visible from the outside of the valley. The walls of the sub- smaller width decreases the distance between the panels and the travel
valley have surrounded the sites, which has made them hardly acces­ way and increases the chance of being viewed by potential travelers.
sible locations in terms of cost distance and visibility, as the cumulative Compared to the main valley, where the topography is more uneven, the
and total viewshed maps also confirm (Figs. 9, 12, and 13). Darih Teet is panels in Darih-Teet have been mostly situated on the rock surfaces close
not visible at all, or only hardly visible, from the main valley (Fig. 13). to the bottom of the valley, which again has provided a setting in which
“Walking” in Darih Teet is the only way for a potential audience to see the petroglyphs have been exposed to the potential audience more
the cultural features in the sub-valley (Figs. 14 and 15). Therefore, its effectively.
environmental and cultural content would be exposed only to those land The positioning of most of the petroglyphs in locations that are not
users with strong economic or social intentions/benefits to expend that frequently visible from the viewpoint of the main valley/Qeydu suggests
much energy and time to enter the sub-valley and interact with all those that they were not intended for a public audience, as some petroglyphs,
visual cultural materials/petroglyphs and exploit the landscape re­ including those in Darih Teet, were neither easily accessible nor visible
sources, possibly in the form of hunting or herding activities as the re­ from the main valley. Most petroglyphs cannot be seen from the valley,
gion is still in use for the same purposes. and one needs to get adequately close to them to recognize the petro­
Unlike Qeydu Valley, Darih Teet is tight (Fig. 14), as moving through glyphs. Therefore, this visibility context/visual landscape suggests the
placement of the petroglyphs could have been socially intended for its
own restricted audience who had adequate knowledge about the
geographic setting and location of the sites, as it is not an easy task to
find the petroglyphs in this uneven topography. The results of the
viewshed analysis are compatible with the observations made in the
fieldwork.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, it was attempted to analyze the intersection of the

positioning of the petroglyphs, the visual setting of the landscape, and its
movement potentials. The estimated least-cost paths in both valleys
were compatible with the topographic features of the landscape and the
current use of the area by local inhabitants including shepherds and
local hunters. Rock art distribution across Qeydu Valley and Darih-Teet
showed a degree of association with the movement patterns and the
estimated optimum pathways. The total and cumulative viewshed ana­
lyses helped to better understand how the visibility setting of the region
Fig. 14. A view of Darih-Teet, facing west. could have played a role in the formation of the cultural landscape.

9
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Fig. 15. a. Petroglyphs depicting a hunting theme positioned in Darih-Teet in close proximity to the calculated LCP, b. an example of a single viewshed calculated for
the same petroglyph, which shows its visibility domain across Darih-Teet and the LCP.

Although rock art is a visual type of cultural material directly associated Acknowledgement
with the visibility dimension of the landscape, in Qeydu Valley, except
for the hunting panels, there was not any strong pattern of correlation I highly appreciate the cooperation provided by Hassan Ghar­
between the placement of the sites and the frequently visible parts of the agouzloo and Dr. Majeed Zeighamee during the fieldwork. I would like
landscape. In contrast, the panels with narrative content, which could to thank the inisghtful comments provided by the anonymous journal
carry more visual information to communicate, were mostly situated in reviewers.
more visible parts of the valley. Another possible approach for further Funding Statement: The author gratefully acknowledges the finan­
analysis is a single viewshed from the viewpoint of the sites, which could cial support of the Department of Graduate Studies at the University BC,
give us new insights into how the visual setting of the landscape could Canada, in conducting the fieldwork for this project.
have been used in the formation of the cultural landscape and at the
local scale of the sites, compared to a total and cumulative regional scale References
of analysis.
Acevedo, Agustín, Fiore, Danae, Ferrari, Alejandro A., 2019. Rock art landscapes. A
systematic study of images, topographies and visibility in south-central Patagonia
Funding Statement (Argentina). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 56.
Anderson, David G., 2012. Least cost pathway analysis in archaeological research. In:
White, D.A., Surface-Evans, S.L. (Eds.), Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes. The
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Department of Graduate Studies at the University of Victoria BC, Can­ Azandaryani, Esmail Hemati, Mohammadifar, Yaghob, 2015. Azandaryan: newfound
ada, in conducting the fieldwork for this project. petroglyphs in hamadan, western Iran. Rock Art Research 32 (2), 202–206.
Azandaryani, Hemati, Nejad, Masoud Rashidi, Qolami, Hossein, Shabani, Mohammad,
2016. New petroglyphs at ali-abad and arzanpoul (arzanfoud) in the hamadan
CRediT authorship contribution statement province, western Iran. International Newsletter on Rock Art (INORA) 74, 11–13.
Bellentani, Federico, 2016. Landscape as text. In: Higuera, C.R.B., TJ (Eds.), Concepts for
Semiotics. University of Tartu Press.
Ebrahim Karimi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original Bender, Barbara, 1992. Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscapes of
draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Stonehenge. Man 735–755.
Bender, Barbara, 2006. Place and landscape. In: Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler, S.,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Rowlands, M., Spyer, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Material Culture. SAGE Publications.
Binandeh, Ali, 2016. Looking at rock art in northwest of Iran. Int. J. Archaeol. 4 (1–1),
12–17.
Bradley, Richard, 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape. Camb. Archaeol. J. 1
Declaration of competing interest (1), 77–101.
Chapman, Henry, 2006. Landscape Archaeology and GIS: Tempus.
The author declares that he does not have conflict of interest.

10
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Chippindale, Christopher, Nash, George, 2004. Pictures in place: approaches to the Llobera, Marcos, Wheatley, David, Steele, James, Cox, Simon, Parchment, Oz, 2010.
figured landscapes of rock-art. In: Chippendale, C., Nash, G., Cambrifge (Eds.), The Calculating the inherent visual structure of a landscape (inherent viewshed) using
Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place. Cambridge University high-throughput computing. Paper Read at beyond the Artifact. Digital
Press. Interpretation of the Past. Proceedings of CAA2004, Prato 13–17 April 2004 at Prato,
Church, Tim, Joe Brandon, R., Burgett, Galen R., 2000. GIS applications in archaeology: Italy.
method in search of theory. In: Wescott, K.L., Brandon, R.J. (Eds.), Practical Llobera, Marcos, Fábrega-Álvarez, Pastor, Parcero-Oubiña, César, 2011. Order in
Applications of GIS for Archaeologists. A Predictive Modelling Toolkit. Taylor & movement: a GIS approach to accessibility. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 843–851.
Francis. Lock, Gary, Kormann, Mariza, Pouncett, John, 2014. Visibility and movement: towards a
Conolly, James, Lake, Mark, 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. GIS-based integrated approach. In: von, H., Polla, S., Verhagen, P. (Eds.),
Cambridge University Press. Computational Approaches to the Study of Movement in Archaeology: Theory,
Dungan, Katherine A., White, Devin, Déderix, Sylviane, Mills, Barbara J., Safi, Kristin, Practice and Interpretation of Factors and Effects of Long Term Landscape Formation
2018. A total viewshed approach to local visibility in the Chaco World. Antiquity 92 and Transformation. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
(364), 905–921. Luís, Luís, Aubry, Thierry, Tomás Santos, André, 2015. Directing the eye. The Côa Valley
Fairén-Jiménez, Sara, 2007. British Neolithic rock art in its landscape. J. Field Archaeol. Pleistocene rock art in its social context. In: Gutierrez, M., Martins, C.P., Cáceres
32 (3), 283–295. (Eds.), XIX International Rock Art Conference IFRAO 2015: Symbols in the
Farajova, Malahat, 2011. Gobustan: rock art cultural landscape. Adoranten 41–66. Landscape: Rock Art and its Context [Arkeos 37]. Instituto Terra e Memória, Spain.
Farhady, Morteza, 1998. Museums in the Wind. Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Mlekuz, Dimitrij, 2014. Exploring the topography of movement. In: von, H., Polla, S.,
Iran [In Persian.]. Verhagen, P. (Eds.), Computational Approaches to the Study of Movement in
Gaffney, Vincent, Van Leusen, M., 1995. Postscript-GIS, environmental determinism and Archaeology: Theory, Practice and Interpretation of Factors and Effects of Long Term
archaeology: a parallel text. In: Lock, G., Stancic, Z. (Eds.), Archaeology and Landscape Formation and Transformation. De Gruyter, Berlin. Berlin/Boston: Walter
Geographical Information Systems: a European Perspective. Taylor & Francis. de Gruyter.
Gaffney, Vincent L., Stančič, Zoran, Watson, Helen, 1996. Moving from catchments to Naserifard, Mohammad, 2009. Iran Petroglyphs (Ideogram Symbols): Khomeyn, Iran.
cognition: tentative steps towards a larger archaeological context for GIS. In: Naserifard, Mohammad, 2016. Iran Petroglyphs; Universal Common Language. Vasef
Aldenderfer, M., Maschner, H.D.G. (Eds.), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Lahiji, Iran.
Infomration Systems. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford. O’Sullivan, Rebecca, 2019. Movement across a ‘mountain barrier’: mapping accessibility
Ghasrian, Sirvan Mohamadi, 2007. Sangestoon: a new rock art site in central Iran. rock with rock-art and GIS in the altai mountains, eastern eurasia. J. Archaeol. Sci.:
art research 24 (1), 59–64. Report 27.
Ghasrian, Sirvan Mohamadi, 2017. Proposal about a relative chronology of rock art in Rafifar, Jalal, 2005. The rock carvings art in Arasbaran (Iran). Tehran, Iran: Iranian
Iran. INORA 77, 9–13. Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization, Anthropology Research Center [In
Ghasrian, Mohamadi, Sirvan, 2009. Wild goat (ibex), hunting and rock art interpretation Persian.].
in Iran. Intenrnation Comngress of Rock Art IFRAO June 29 - July 3, 2009. Piauí, Rennell, Rebecca, 2012. Landscape, experience and GIS: exploring the potential for
Brazil 878–884. methodological dialogue. J. Archaeol. Method Theor 19 (4), 510–525.
Gibson, Erin., 2007. The Archaeology of Movement in a Mediterranean Landscape. Robinson, David Wayne, 2006. Landscape, Taskscape, and Indigenous Perception: the
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20 (1). Rock Art of South-Central California, PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge.
Gillings, Mark., 2012. Landscape phenomenology, GIS and the role of affordance. Robinson, David Wayne, 2010. Land use, land ideology: an integrated geographic
J. Archaeol. Method Theor 19 (4), 601–611. information systems analysis of rock art within south-central California. Am. Antiq.
Gray, Basil, 1961. Treasures of Asia, Persian Painting. The World Publishing Company, 792–818.
United States. Robinson, David, Wienhold, Michelle, 2016. Household networks and emergent
Green, Stanton W., 1990. Sorting out settlement in southeastern Ireland: landscape territory: a GIS study of Chumash households, villages and rock-art in South-Central
archaeology and geographic information systems. In: Allen, K.M.S., Green, S.W., California. World Archaeol. 48 (3), 363–380.
Zubrow, E.B.W. (Eds.), Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, Rogozhinskiy, Alexey E., 2011. Rock art sites in Kazakhstan. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), Rock Art
London. in Central Asia, a Thematic Study. ICOMOS, Paris.
Hartley, Ralph, Vawser, Anne M Wolley, 1998. Spatial behaviour and learning in the Roustaei, Kourosh, 2007. Introducing newly found rock engravings in Kouh-e Dokhtar,
prehistoric environment of the Colorado River drainage (south-eastern Utah), Reshm area, Damghan. Bastanpazhuhi 2 (3), 90–94 [in Persian.].
western North America. In: Chippindale, C., Taçon, P.S.C. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Sigari, Dario, Forti, Luca, 2022. Towards a new perspective on the rock art sites-
Rock-Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. landscape relations in the Upper Palaeolithic of Valcamonica (N-Italy). Alpine and
Hermann, Luc, 2020. Repertory of the tamgas in the Talas region (Kyrgyzstan). In: Mediterranean Quaternary 35 (2), 91–104.
Jacobson-Tepfer, E., Novozheniv, V. (Eds.), Rock Art Chronicles of Golden Steppe: Sigari, Dario, Shirinli, Sevinc, Rahman, Abdullayev, 2020. Gobustan rock art cultural
from Karatau to Altai/Jacobson-. landscape (Azerbaijan). In: Smith, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology.
Herzog, Irmela, 2013. The potential and limits of optimal path analysis. In: Bevan, A., Springer, Cham.
Lake, M. (Eds.), Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces. Left Coast Stucky, Jay Lee Dan, 1998. On applying viewshed analysis for determining least-cost
Press. paths on digital elevation models. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 12 (8), 891–905.
Hu, Di., 2011. Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and Geographical Information Tilley, Christopher, 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and
Systems, 21. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, pp. 80–90. Monuments. Berg Publishers.
Ingold, Tim, 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeol. 25 (2), 152–174. Tilley, Christopher, 2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape
Ingold, Tim, 2021. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling Phenomenology. Routledge.
and Skill. routledge, London. Tokhatyan, Karen, 2015. Rock carvings of Armenia. Fundamental Armenology 2, 1–22.
Intxaurbe, Iñaki, Rivero, Olivia, Medina-Alcaide, Ma Ángeles, Arriolabengoa, Martin, Van Leusen, Martijn, 1999. Viewshed and cost surface analysis using GIS (cartographic
Ríos-Garaizar, Joseba, Salazar, Sergio, Ruiz-López, Juan Francisco, Ortega- modelling in a cell-based GIS II). In: Barcelo, J.A., Briz, I., Vila, A. (Eds.), New
Martinez, Paula, Diego, Garate, 2020. Hidden images in Atxurra Cave (Northern Techniques for Old Times, CAA 98, Computer Applications and Quantitavie Methods
Spain): a new proposal for visibility analyses of Palaeolithic rock art in subterranean in Archaeology. Barcelona: BAR International Series.
environments. Quat. Int. 566, 163–170. Van Leusen, Martijn, 2002. Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the
Jamali, Mohsen, 2015. Golpayegan petroglyphs, the passage for the history. Qom, Iran: Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. PhD
Aemeh. disertation.
Karimi, Ebrahim, 2018. The petroglyphs of Domab in the central plateau of Iran. Near E. Vanwezer, Nils, Treal Taylor, William Timothy, Bayarsaikhan, Jamsranjav,
Archaeol. 81 (2), 128–140. Breitenbach, Sebastian FM., Amano, Noel, Louys, Julien, del Val, Miren,
Karimi, Ebrahim, 2020. Abstract markings in the rock art of Iran: relative dating and Boivin, Nicole, Petraglia, Michael, 2021. Hunting, herding, and people in the rock
possible function of the markings. Time Mind 13 (2), 141–163. art of Mongolia: new discoveries in the Gobi-Altai Mountains. Archaeological
Karimi, Ebrahim, 2021. Between scene and association: toward a bettwe undrestanding Research in Asia 26, 100267.
of scenes in the rock art of Iran. In: Davidosn, I., Nowell, A. (Eds.), Making Scenes: Verhagen, Philip, 2018. Spatial analysis in archaeology: moving into new territories. In:
Global Perspectives on Scenes in Rock Art. Berghahn, New York, Oxford. Forbriger, C.S.M., Bubenzer, O. (Eds.), Digital Geoarchaeology, New Techniques for
Karimi, Ebrahim, Ujang, Baharudin, 2015. The petroglyphs of qameshlu national park, Interdisciplinary Human-Environmental Research. Springer.
central Iran. Rock art research 32 (1), 116–119. Verhagen, Philip, Nuninger, Laure, Groenhuijzen, Mark R., 2019. Modelling of pathways
Karimi, Ebrahim, Ali, Taghva, Farhad, Zarei Kurdshuli, 2016. The petroglyphs of Dasht- and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches. In:
e-Morghab in the fars Province of Iran. Rock Art Research 33 (1), 65. Verhagen, P., Joyce, J., Groenhuijzen, M.R. (Eds.), Finding the Limits of the Limes:
Karimi, Ebrahim, Heydarian, Mahmood, Alirezazadeh, Mahdi, Ghorbani, Hamid Reza, Modelling Demography, Economy and Transport on the Edge of the Roman Empire.
Sarikhani, Majid, 2020. Ibex in context: a new insight into the meaning of the ibex Wernke, Steven A., Kohut, Lauren E., Abel, Traslaviña, 2017. A GIS of affordances:
depiction in the rock art of Iran based on new findings from Mount Eüji-iti in Central movement and visibility at a planned colonial town in highland Peru. J. Archaeol.
Western Iran. Archaeological Research in Asia 23, 100211. Sci. 84, 22–39.
Khosrowzadeh, Alireza, Ali, Aarab, Bahraminia, Mohsen, 2017. New petroglyphs in ziad Wheatley, David., 1995. Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for
abad and hassan robat plains (isfahan province, Iran). Mediterranean Archaeology & investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In: Lock, G.,
Archaeometry 17 (3), 215–224. Stancic, Z. (Eds.), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: a European
Llobera, Marcos, 2003. Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. Perspective. Taylor and Francis, UK, USA.
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 17 (1), 25–48. Wheatley, David, 2000. Spatial technology and archaeological theory revisited. In: Paper
Llobera, Marcos, 2007. Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeol. 39 (1), 51–69. Read at Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 845. BAR
International Series at Oxford.

11
E. Karimi Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 (2024) e00358

Wheatley, David, 2004. Making space for an archaeology of place. Internet Archaeol. 15. Wienhold, Michelle L., Robinson, David W., 2017. GIS in rock art studies. In: McNiven, B.
Wheatley, David, Gillings, Mark, 2000. Vision, Perception and GIS: some notes on the D.a.I.J. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock
development of enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. Art. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Beyond the map: archaeology and spatial technologies. nato asi series a life sciences Winterbottom, S.J., Long, D., 2006. From abstract digital models to rich virtual
321, 1–27. environments: landscape contexts in Kilmartin Glen, Scotland. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33
Wheatly, David, Gillings, Mark, 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology, the (10), 1356–1367.
Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor & Francis, London & New York. Zvelebil, Marek, Green, Stanton W., Macklin, Mark G., 1992. Archaeological landscapes,
Wienhold, Michelle, 2014. Spatial analysis and actor-network theory: a multi-scalar lithic scatters, and human behavior. In: Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space,
analytical study of the chumash rock art of south-central California, PhD Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York and London.
dissertation. Forensic and Investigative Science. University of Central Lancashire.

12