The Mudbrick Project

The Mudbrick Project is a digital archaeology initiative developed by students from the University of Amsterdam that assesses the impact of modern human disturbances on the preservation of tombs and graves across Cyprus. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and spatial proximity analysis, the project integrates archaeological site data with land cover information to evaluate how factors such as urbanization, agricultural activity, and infrastructure development influence site vulnerability.

Aims

• Which sites are most exposed to modern disturbances, and how are they distributed across the island?
• Which type of disturbance (urban, infrastructure, or agriculture) contributes the most to overall risk?
• Are Hellenistic sites more exposed to risk than Roman sites, or vice versa?

Explore the Map

Methods and Results

How we analysed the data

To analyse the dataset, we combined GIS processing (QGIS) with spreadsheet analysis (Excel).

First, the attribute table from QGIS was exported as a CSV file and opened in Excel. Most of the analysis was then carried out in Excel, while QGIS was used to visually check patterns and confirm spatial accuracy.

The original dataset contained 940 individual tombs and necropoleis. However, because multiple tombs can belong to the same site, we merged the data into site-level records. This reduced the dataset to 439 sites. After cleaning the data and removing highly urban locations, the final dataset used for analysis contained 312 sites.

Data cleaning and site selection

The original dataset includes location uncertainty of up to ±100 metres due to older excavation records. In some cases, sites were placed at the centre of a town rather than their exact location.

To account for this:

• A 100 m buffer was used as a minimum site area
• Sites that were clearly or strongly urban at 100 m were excluded
• This prevented urban bias caused by uncertain coordinates

A total of 127 sites were removed during this step.

Urbanisation categories

To simplify interpretation, we grouped sites into urbanisation categories based on the percentage of built-up land (urban + infrastructure).

Built-up %	Category
> 60%	Clearly urbanized
40–60%	Strongly developed
20–40%	Moderately developed
10–20%	Limited built-up
< 10%	Not urbanized

Risk scoring (Multi-Criteria Analysis)

To compare sites more easily, we converted land-use percentages into a point-based score.
Each land-use type was weighted based on its assumed impact:

Land Use	Weight
Urban	3
Infrastructure	2
Agriculture	1
Archaeological	0
Not classified	0

The total score for each site was calculated using:
Points = (Agriculture × 100 × 1) + (Infrastructure × 100 × 2) + (Urban × 100 × 3)
The maximum possible score is 300 (100% urban).

Risk categories

We grouped sites into three risk levels based on their average score:

Points	Risk Category
< 74	Below median risk
74–99	Above median risk
> 99	Strongly above median risk

Key results

Most sites are exposed to risk

Very few sites are free from modern land-use pressure:

• At 250 m: 92% of sites have at least one risk factor
• At 500 m: 89% of sites have at least one risk factor

Agriculture is the dominant factor

We analysed which land-use type covers the largest area around each site.

Dominant Land Use	500 m	250 m
Agriculture	133	135
Infrastructure	1	1
Urban	1	2
Not classified	21	18

Agriculture is the most widespread factor, even though it has the lowest weight in the scoring system.

Sites are mostly in peri-urban areas

Most sites fall into:

• Limited to moderately urbanized categories
• Transitional (peri-urban) landscapes

Chronology comparison (Hellenistic vs Roman)

Category	Hellenistic	H + R	Roman
Clearly urban	1	0	2
Strongly urban	3	0	3
Moderately developed	14	18	20
Limited built-up	40	26	27
Not urbanized	73	33	52

Overall:

• Differences are relatively small
• Hellenistic sites appear more often in non-urban areas
• Roman sites are slightly more present in developed areas

Summary

• Most sites are exposed to modern land-use pressures
• Agriculture is the most widespread disturbance factor
• Sites are mainly located in peri-urban environments
• Chronological differences exist but are not strong

This analysis provides a broad, landscape-level view of risk. It highlights patterns of exposure rather than identifying specific cases of immediate damage.

About Us