Internet Archaeol. 16. Rajala. On social epistemology

7.2 On social epistemology

GIS practitioners and archaeologists as a community use GIS as an everyday tool. However, understanding the principles of reasoning and the theory behind GIS is essential to use it. It is clear that there is no separate archaeological GIS theory but rather archaeological reasoning within GIS studies should be connected with generic archaeological theory. Archaeological GIS has existence only in the context of changing paradigms and epistemological debates in an intellectual environment where different applications are created. Although the way data are structured in different data models defines the basic level of interference, the archaeological questions based on changing premises should define archaeological applications. Computing problems are shared with other GIS practitioners, but problems with the archaeological data component can be resolved within the archaeological community. In practice, the definitions of different concepts are created in the field and in heritage management. Theoretical development can happen only through mutual understanding between theoretical archaeologists, field archaeologists and computer experts, since the limits of archaeological GIS analyses are set by general archaeological knowledge.

The theoretical frame of reference behind the interpretations of the results of digital archaeology in general is based on current archaeological debates on the relationship between humans, landscape and social importance (cf. e.g. Barrett et al. 1991; Ingold 1993; Thomas 1996; Bradley 1998; 2000). The current state of archaeological research defines the archaeological evidence available and suggests theoretical models that are generally accepted when explaining phenomena. Therefore, the process of interpretation is created within the social context of a research community at a certain moment in research history. At this moment, the premises are set by phenomenological and post-structural thinking, and thus, analysing sensing is paramount. As shown in section 6, post-structural ideas give means of interpreting archaeological situations and explaining the possible meanings of the results of different analyses. Methodologies require theory but methodologies contribute only marginally to the creation of new high-level theories; the processes of interpretation and explanation a require wider frame of reference.