Internet Archaeol. 16. Rajala. Spatial modelling and pragmatism

5.4 Spatial modelling and pragmatism

Wheatley and Gillings (2002, fig. 12.1) divided the results of spatial patterning analysis into environmental and humanistic explanations. The methods used for acquiring material for these interpretations include all manipulative GIS procedures (querying, quantification, territorial analysis, visibility analysis, distance measuring and interpolation). Wheatley and Gillings (2002, 162-63) considered these spatial analyses as having methodological value although criticisms can be overcome only by including cultural variables. The creation of cultural attributes requires historical information, iconographic analysis and the use of certain optimising principles or modern assumptions. This way, all model building includes subjective evaluations and archaeological and historical reasoning.

Gaffney et al. (1996, 133) suggested that the unsophisticated and functionalistic applications of GIS techniques could restrict the development of archaeological thought. Furthermore, Wheatley (1996) has encountered situations in which standard functionalistic approaches have proven unpromising for further analysis. Functional predictive modelling has been seen as having many unresolved methodological and theoretical problems (Wheatley and Gillings 2002, 180-81). However, in some cases predictive modelling has been used successfully (e.g. Vullo and Barker 1997) and it clearly has an empirical basis. Therefore, instead of seeing predictive modelling as theoretically unfounded and positivistic (cf. Wheatley 2003), its results can be conceived as graphic representations of archaeological potential and as a part of an ongoing research process. Predictive modelling can be seen as a way of formulating hypotheses to be upheld or discarded by accumulating archaeological observations. This is not only a realistic view point but also a pragmatic one.