GIS for Archaeology and CRM

Sorry to all who may have visited during the extended black-out period.  I know… bad form.

So.  Predictive modeling in archaeology; always a hot topic.  I have been into this subject for a number of years now.  I have practiced various types of predictive/sensitivity/location/complete-guess-work models in an assortment of contexts.  You have to love a methodology that has no right or wrong outcome…  Anyway, I have been diving back into the topic lately because of interaction with various colleagues at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2009 Conference (Williamsburg, VA) and the subsequent reading of a few books and papers.

Basically, there are a series of works that are refreshing theoretically mature advances from the old and stale “predictive model”.  The authors of these volumes and papers and you readers may disagree that there was any sort of “modeling revolution” of late, but from my perspective, the published literature of the past number of years was getting a tad stale (perhaps my perspective is too often looking in the wrong direction?). However, there was great work going on and I want to mention two defining points in this whole story.  First was the 1992 Valletta Conference, aka the “Malta Agreement”, that led to the 1997 and 2001 versions of the Netherlands National Service for the Archaeological Heritage (ROB) created Indicative Map of Archaeological Values of the Netherlands (IKAW) [some information can be found here].  From the IKAW maps and related studies sprang a number of critiques and advancements from researchers such as Hans Kamermans, Martijn van Leusen, Philip Verhagen.

The second nick-point is Thomas G. Whitley’s Dissertation entitled, Dynamical systems modeling in archaeology A GIS approach to site selection processes in the Greater Yellowstone Region, 2000, University of Pittsburgh [abstract].  Whitley did not rest on his laurels following his dissertation, he has published and presented a number of advancements since 2000.  Many of these articles and papers are available on his companies website; Brockington and Associates Inc.  Put these works together and Whitley has developed a great and efficient method for building site location models upon cause-effect decisions with explanatory power.  While each paper is good it its own right, Whitley’s 2009 presentation of “Beyond the Marsh: Settlement Choice, Perception, and Spatial Decision-Making on the Georgia Coastal Plain” took his method, in my opinion, to a new level.  Certainly check it out for yourself!

Back to the Netherlands side of things, many great articles and a few volumes are currently available or will be soon published.  Hans Kamermans, 2007 “Smashing the Crystal Ball.  A Critical Evaluation of the Dutch National Archaeological Predictive Model (IKAW)” [citation] is a great foundation and the Kamermans and van Leusen 2005 volume Predictive Modelling for Archaeological Heritage Management: A Research Agenda is fabulous [available here] .  Newer volumes include the repackaging of Verhagen’s dissertation on following works into Case Studies in Archaeological Predictive Modelling, 2007, Leiden University Press [available here] and coming on the horizon is the Kamermans volume Archaeological Prediction and Risk Management. Alternatives to Current Practice [soon to be available here].  In concert with these volumes, Kamermans and Verhagen have given numerous presentations on this topic; many of which at the CAA conferences.
This stream of literature from 2000 till now shows a sustainable acceleration in the theory and practice of archaeological site location modeling.  I fully endorse the view of van Leusen and Kamermans (2005:7) when they state:

Together, these chapters constitute the first volume dedicated to looking in detail at the theory and methodology of predictive cartographic modelling for archaeological heritage management since Judge and Sebastian’s seminal 1988 volume Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past.

As you can tell, I find it all quite exciting.  Perhaps I am slow to the plate with some of these references, but taken together, this body of work is a defining shift in the direction established by Judge and Sebastian (1988).  A shift in the right direct in my humble opinion.

I could rail on all day about this topic, but I’ll save that for future posts If you have any research or references you want to share, give me a shout or leave a comment.