Internet Archaeol. 16. Whitley. Introduction

1.0 Introduction

During the last decade or so there has been a concerted effort to apply advanced analytical and statistical tools to archaeological datasets (e.g. Allen et al. 1990; Lock and Stančić 1995; Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Gillings et al. 1999; Wescott and Brandon 2000; Lock 2000; Lock and Brown 2000; Barceló et al. 2000; and Wheatley and Gillings 2002). The nature of archaeological theoretical and methodological orientations on either side of the Atlantic, though, has produced two very different approaches to using the rapidly expanding computational power available in today's desktops and GIS software in particular (Harris and Lock 1995; Kvamme 1995; 2001; Lock and Harris 2000). The North American approach has been one of continually enhancing empirical observation, recording and analysis, and placing the results in positivist interpretive frameworks with strong predictive capacity (e.g. predictive models for site location). The European approach has been to explore potential alternative frameworks which may have little to do with empirical observations, but are enhanced by the new generations of hardware and software.

Oddly enough, both approaches are beginning to draw upon similar concepts of cognition among past societies, though from different perspectives. The North American development and use of GIS predictive models, driven by Cultural Resource Management (CRM) purposes, has focused on understanding the relationships between site location and both conscious and subconscious group decision-making (cf. Church et al. 2000). The European tendency to envision archaeological sites within both social and spatial contexts (e.g. through landscape and agent-driven frameworks) has emphasised an individual viewpoint on cognition where perception is often a product of cultural identity and symbolic or ideological interaction (cf. Witcher 1999).