I ran across a relatively new blog (GIS in Science) today that is established to be the discussion forum for a new project that evaluates the value of Geographic Information Systems within Science. Run by members of the Spatial Information Laboratory (SPIN Lab) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, GIS in Science also has a large body of contributors from a variety of disciplines and locations.
What drew me to this site was a post and paper discussing the the integration of GIS within the discipline of Archaeology. Before I talk about the paper, I would be helpful to briefly outline the context which this group has developed to evaluate how well GIS is integrated into various scientific disciplines.
Modelling the integration of GIS in a scientific discipline
In a short paper entitled, Modelling the integration of GIS in a scientific discipline, the author discusses an outline of an explanatory model that evaluates the value of GIS within a discipline. The model that the author is searching for is intended to go beyond the typical quantification of publications and citations to a more in depth search which is also qualitative. Basically, the model which is proposed offers six stages before GIS is fully integrated. Briefly, the stages are defined by:
Stage 1, pioneering publications and presentations
Stage 2, invitational presentations
Stage 3, sessions and symposia dedicated to topic
Stage 4, academics seeking training
Stage 5, academics providing training
Stage 6, construction of large scale data base for research and analysis
and full integration. At the point of full integration, GIS is woven into a substantial part of the academic research work flow and education. This model represents the initial ideas of the project group and are certain to be updated and refined as the model progresses.
Integration of GIS in Archaeology
As one of the initial disciplines surveyed by the GIS in Science project group, Archaeology is discussed as
being more broadly integrated with GIS than other historical sciences. As early as the 1970’s archaeology had started to turn some attention to the need of studying space as a prime attribute of culture. As noted by Hans Kamermans of the University of Leyden,
“Archaeology is the determination of human behavior, from the location of cultural objects.”
As the 1980’s progressed, computers were heavily used in archaeology and early GIS methods were adopted. Conferences in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s involved more topics of spatial analysis and GIS. As well, publications on GIS in archaeology grew in numbers. By the late 1990’s conferences had specific sessions dedicated to GIS and GIS was a topic available for study in a large number of universities. This area of study is more available today. The author of this paper conclude that to this point, stages 1 through 5 of the model if GIS integration are fulfilled, but Stage 6, large scale databases, are still outstanding.
Although attempts at large scale archaeological databases have been made since the early days of computers in archaeology, no one database has been constructed to satisfy the needs of various researchers, both academic and professional, that covers a broad region of space and time. Specific databases have been created for specific purposes, which work very well, but large scale applicability is still unrealized.
The problems with the advancement of GIS in Archaeology are the lack of a large scale database and time:money. While the issue of the database is that of multiple recording methods, multiple data uses, and endless varieties of research questions, the issue of money is pretty obvious. By universities and private companies dealing in archaeology have little budget leeway for implementing new and novel uses of technology, such as GIS. Though, as stated by the project team, this is not the end of the road.
Archaeology has great value in the use of GIS for the integration of multiple data sets and measurements, spatial analysis, and predictive modeling. These areas are where the use of GIS in archaeology is vibrant and where advances have been made. The author continues by conjecturing the future fields in which archaeologists can take advantage and advance GIS. It is the areas of temporal GIS and 3D/4D applications that the author feels Archaeology will turn to. Noting that time is just as an important consideration as place, archaeologists will embrace this dimension of GIS. As well, visualization in 3D will become a common GIS application in the future of archaeology.
What does a GIS Archaeologist think about this?
The project is very ambitious and I think very worth while. I am very interested to see how other disciplines use GIS and how well integrated they are comparatively.
As far as the discussion of GIS in Archaeology, I believe they have a nice synthesis, but perhaps thier view is a little narrow. First off, the article makes more than a few references to the distinction between academics and “the large group of non-academic, professional archaeologists that use the data for so-called ‘Cultural Resource Management’” Pardon? Was I just called a non-academic that does ’so-called’ management? I have passed through the ivory tower, but I didn’t find the chairs very comfortable. Perhaps the rift between scholars and professional is greater in parts of Europe, but the degrees above my desk and the resources that my employer has effectively managed comfort me in knowing that their academic slant is misguided. Moving on. Secondly, I am an archaeology who does GIS 99% of the time. For me, it is totally integrated into the discipline. I think the authors need to explicitly define what they mean by archaeology and where they seek to find integration. GIS is, of course, methods, applications, techniques, and/or a paradigm. Integration can be through broad application or specialization. I would be interested to know how the project team defines these terms.
The creation of large scale archaeological data bases is well underway. As seen by a number of papers at the Computer Applications in Archaeology conference, there is great research in this area. I am sure the project team is aware of this research, one of the papers authors, Hans Kamermans, is the Secretary of the CAA steering comity. Here are some links (OCHRE, Open Context) to very cool projects which take archaeological data recorded in very different lexicons and standardizes them based on various means. This is a very active field of research and definitely one to watch.
As far as the issue of time and money, us ‘non-academics’ have found a variety of ways to sneak technology into our bare bones projects. I have to give credit to many university researchers who have pioneered new methods and continually developed them to a point where professional can employee them with some certainty. Although, just as much credit should be given to quick thinking archaeologists who adopt proven and effective technology from other fields. In today’s climate of free Internet service, APIs, open source, and the whole lot of democratized technologies, the money barrier will be continuously overcome with the confidence in imaginative individuals.
As far as the future of GIS and archaeology, it’s any ones guess. I think 3D visualization is already a big application for GIS in our field. Chances are it will grow, but you only have to look to the problems that many disciplines have had with 3D vis over the past decade. 3D has been the future since the future has been made the past. On the other hand, advancements in 3D geometry capturing and the constant advancement of Google and its competitors definitely give a breath of fresh air to this department.
I will certainly check back to GIS in Science. I am very curious to see where archaeology falls on the spectrum of disciplines.