Dubovtseva E. N., Leontiev A. Al. Heat Maps as a Tool for Spatial Analysis of Finds in an Excavation Trench: A Case Study of the Kakvinskiye Pechi I Eneolithic Site

Elena N. Dubovtseva
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia, Ekaterinburg)
ORCID: 0000-0003-3214-7173
E-mail: ket1980@yandex.ru

Arseniy Al. Leontiev
Specialized Educational and Research Center of the Ural Federal University (Russia, Еkaterinburg)
ORCID: 0009-0001-6607-4112
E-mail: stockvstoys@gmail.com

 Download | Back to the Content № 2. 2026

UDC 902.2(470.5)”632″
DOI: 10.58529/2782-6511-2026-5-2-42-53

ABSTRACT. Analyzing finds distribution within an excavation trench is a key step in the study of an archaeological site. At the current stage, the use of heat maps (Kernel Density Estimation — KDE) is a promising method for processing data from individual three-dimensional recording of a large number of artifacts. The article demonstrates the potential of this method using the example of the Kakvinskiye Pechi I Eneolithic settlement (Northern Trans-Urals). The object of the study is a semidugout dwelling covering an area of 28 sq. m with a recessed central hearth. A representative collection of pottery and stone tools (4,357 items) was recovered from the excavation. To visualize the density distribution of the artifacts, the authors developed original scripts in Python (seaborn, pandas) using a Gaussian kernel and an optimal smoothing parameter. The analysis of heat maps identified areas of concentration of stone tools and pottery within the dwelling: stone tools and
production waste are localized south of the hearth, while pottery is concentrated in the northwestern part. This allowed the reconstruction of the functional structure of the living space: food preparation, repair and manufacture of stone tools (arrowheads, scrapers, knives) took place near the hearth. The identified spatial separation of pottery and stone tools indicates functional zoning of the dwelling, likely reflecting the division of household tasks. The predominance of hunting weapons (arrowheads) among the tools, combined with the absence of fishing weights and the small number of fish bones in the hearth, suggests a winter occupation season with hunting as the main activity. The proposed KDE method has proven highly effective for analyzing the structure of living space even when the material is not fully preserved, and can be recommended for the study of both single-layer and multilayered sites.

KEYWORDS: Northern Trans-Urals, Eneolithic, spatial analysis, planigraphy, Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), Python in archaeology, structure of living space

For citation: Dubovtseva E. N., Leontiev A. Al. [Heat Maps as a Tool for Spatial Analysis of Finds in an Excavation Trench: A Case Study of the Kakvinskiye Pechi I Eneolithic Site]. Istorikogeograficheskiy zhurnal [Historical Geography Journal], 2026, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 42–53. DOI: 10.58529/2782-6511-2026-5-2-42-53 (In Russian).

Received 7 May 2026
Accepted 6 July 2026

© 2026 The Authors

REFERENCES

  • Baxter M. J. Statistics in Archaeology. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. (In English).
  • Chairkina N. M. Eneolit Srednego Zaural’ya [Eneolithic of the Middle Trans-Urals]. Ekaterinburg: UrO RAN Publ., 2005. (In Russian).
  • Digital Geoarchaeology: New Techniques for Interdisciplinary Human-Environmental Research. Heidelberg: Springer, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9 (In English).
  • Glushkov I. G. Keramika kak istoricheskiy istochnik [Ceramics as a Historical Source]. Novosibirsk:Izdatel’stvo Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN Publ., 1996. (In Russian).
  • Hodder I., Orton C. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976. (In English).
  • Koksharov S. F. Pamyatniki eneolita Severa Zapadnoy Sibiri [Eneolithic Sites of the North of Western Siberia]. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo NPMP “Volot” Publ., 2009. EDN: QPNCET. (In Russian).
  • Korobov D. S. [Digital Archaeology Today: Achievements and Challenges]. Istoricheskaya informatika [Historical informatics], 2023, no. 3 (45), pp. 107–121. EDN: XIBIVP. DOI: 10.7256/2585-7797.2023.3.44036 (In Russian).
  • Kostomarov V. M., Bulakova E. A. [Lower Tobol Region in the Bronze Age: Geographical Patterns and Cultural Areas]. Ufimskiy arkheologicheskiy vestnik [Ufa Archaeological Herald], 2023, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 331–343. EDN: TPLZDU. DOI: 10.31833/uav/2023.23.2.011 (In Russian).
  • Marchenko D. V. [Development of Planigraphic Studies in Archaeology in Russia (Upper Paleolithic)]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya, filologiya [Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology], 2017, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 26–38. EDN: YNSGPB. DOI: 10.25205/1818-7919-2017-
    16-7-26-38 (In Russian).
  • Wheatley D., Gillings M. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London; New York: Taylor & Francis, 2002. DOI: 10.4324/9780203302392 (In English).
  • Yudina E. A. [Structure of Residential Space]. Poseleniye Bystryy Kul’yogan 66: pamyatnik epokhi neolita Surgutskogo Priob’ya [The Bystry Kulyogan 66 Settlement: Neolithic Site of the Surgut Ob Region]. Ekaterinburg; Surgut: Ural’skoye izd-vo Publ., 2006, pp. 40–46. (In Russian).
  • Zolnikov I. D., Nikulina A. V., Pavlenok K. K., Vybornov A. V., Postnov A. V., Bychkov D. A., Glushkova N. V. [Regularities in the Spatial Location of Archaeological Objects in Tomsk Region]. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya [Russian Archaeology], 2020, no. 1, pp. 22–31. EDN: BONPRY. DOI: 10.31857/
    S086960630008251-5 (In Russian).
[Top]