Internet Archaeol. 16. Rajala. Perception and perceived

6.2 Perception and the perceived

Before making an interpretation a researcher has to define the premises for the reasoning process. In any research situation this means both theoretical and practical considerations related to the possibilities and restrictions of the analysis. In the case of visibility analysis, the theoretical frame of reference comes from the theory of perception. Gibson (1950; 1966; 1979) suggested that the acts of seeing and looking take place only when they are afforded in the context of practical action. Ideally, in order to measure different affordances, different possible viewsheds should be considered. These could be carried out using different parameters for locations and individuals and for the elements restricting visibility (cf. Tschan et al. 2000). However, in this example, as so often in archaeology, the palaeoenvironmental knowledge is insufficient to create the definite reconstruction of past restricting vegetation covers. The use of coverages without vegetation cover limits the value of the analysis but allows some conclusions to be drawn. Theoretically, the coverages created with no vegetation cover represent maximum affordances, not real affordances. More modelling would be needed to discuss alternative scenarios but the comparison of different maximum affordances can highlight significant similarities and differences.

The cultural importance of sensing place and space is based on an intellectual and emotional response that is shared as a common value. That is how people attach meanings to places (Tuan 1977; see also Ingold 1993; Thomas 1996). From a post-structural point of view, the practical action of everyday life defines the structuration of space. The way a physical environment is structured is based on the principal of homologous opposites (cf. Bourdieu 1977). Things visible or concealed, up or down, and left or right define what can be seen as culturally significant. Therefore, during an archaeological reasoning process visibility or invisibility of different features is considered. In an ideal situation, material evidence can demonstrate the significance of different features within archaeological data analysis. If there is no concrete evidence of the importance of different landscape features, contrasting different situations and the observation of similarities and differences are the basis of the interpretations. Furthermore, the visible areas can be considered to be potentially controlled (cf. Foucault 1980), or at least observed and guarded for different reasons.