Sorry for the lack of posts over the 4th of July Holiday. My favorite fishing spot does not have Wi-Fi ;)

Back to the posting…

This is the title of a recent thread on the Online Archaeology forum that has drawn a great response with some interesting observations.

The Discussion

The thread started innocently enough with a few folks asking about applications of GIS in archaeology, if it is valued, and whether it is worth while to take a class in it. As with the Online Archaeology site, many of the responses and view points here are from the UK.

Initially, many responses stated that they have used of heard of GIS in archaeology here and there, but overall it was too expensive. User AntArch, came to the table with the first informative response clearing the air of some misconceptions and describing more the essence of GIS, how it can be used in archaeology. Citing the lack of university training, lack of exemplar data sets available, and resistance from the contract/professional units due to time and cost, AntArch ultimately agreed that, yes, GIS is undervalued in archaeology.

A number or responses back and forth generally agreed that GIS is a very powerful tool for the archaeological tool chest, but often unused because of the real or perceived notion that is is too expensive, there is a lack of trained users and a confusion about what the “GIS” is and what it can do. To me the latter seems like a major reoccurring theme.

Then the discussion got very interesting! From the pleasant banter of general agreement, user “Snooks” words cracked like thunder (that may be a bit dramatic, but…)

“I am in a key IT position in one of the major contractors in the UK… I can tell you I have not seen GIS used in commercial archaeology. Too expensive and too time consuming…We want jobs to come in fast and reports to go out fast. No time/money to waste on GIS analysis.”

Well, that was one hell of a statement. AntArch followed this is a well crafted response expressing dismay for Snooks point of view and arguing the basics of what contract archaeology is all about. Not that this is the topic of the discussion, but Snooks obviously brought it into play with his/her statement. Snooks and AntArch had it our back and forth, with Snooks taking the business is business hard line. Snooks goes so far as to say that commercial archaeologists fain a desire to be academics, but we “inherently” cannot because of our pursuit for the almighty buck (or 0.781933 euro). After a few volleys, Snooks conceded that ideally, collecting “GIS data” is the proper and ethical thing for archaeologists to do, but in this business climate, it won’t fly, so don’t bother getting training because it won’t get you a job. I’m glad no body told me that when I was in school!

The responses that followed were all in support of AntArch’s pro-GIS position. Mostly stating that they too work for a commercial company using GIS practices on nearly all projects. Further, these responses addressed the common gripe of too much money and time and encouraged students to take a look into GIS as an addition to their studies.

The Conclusion

Although Snooks dollar-first-archaeology-later attitude was abhorrent within the forum, it certainly opens a can of worms that is right for the picking. When GIS techniques and practice is so evidently useful to archaeologists, what is the barrier that keeps it from common acceptance. As shown, time/money is the most often cited reason, but is it more of a contract vs. academic problem, or is it just a lack of understanding of what a GIS point of view is capable of?

It seems to me that the misunderstanding of what “GIS” actually IS causes a rift which trickles down to create the subsequent issues. Surely, I am no GIS prophet who claims to “get it”, but I have dealt with GIS and Archaeology enough to see the bigger picture. Within the forum discussion, the term “GIS” is often batted around as a commodity; a thing you have or do not have, GIS either is or is not. Of course, GIS is not a singular thing, rather a collection of things composed into a system that has objects and properties. The classic analogy is GIS as a toolbox. Tools can be used in different ways to solve different problems. To know how to address an issue, you need to know your tools. GIS is endlessly scalable. GIS tools can be used in an archaeological project from the level of visualizing GPS points, a quick aerial/satellite overlay, or complex model building and analysis.

Within the forum, the “too expensive” argument for GIS is put in it’s place by suggesting the numerous open source / freely licensed GIS programs (See a recent post by Mapz the GIS librarian). As far as the “too expensive” argument applied to training personnel, I am sure one could find a GIS knowledgeable intern or entry level archaeologist for a low price. I was one of those for a number of years and I know there are plenty more out there. The computer skills needed to learn your way around a GIS are not for beyond the basic skills most college kids already have. I would stress that a back ground in Geography and GIS theory is as important, if not more so than computer skills, but getting your foot in the GIS/Archaeology door does not have to be costly.

The discussion on the Online Archaeology Forum is a very important discussion for Archaeology and a whole. The replies give good insight into the level that GIS has permeated archaeology and has become (or not become) an accepted tool. The topics raised by the simple title “GIS; Undervalued in Archaeology?” go far and wide beyond the use of GIS in archaeology. I hope this discussion develops as time goes on.