6. Results

For each of the time periods, as well as for the full site database, a predictive model is created. The resultant models for the Winnipeg study area are shown in Figure 19 (all-time period model), Figure 20 (Archaic Period Model), Figure 21 (Woodland Period Model), and Figure 22 (Historic Period Model). For the MbMF study area, the models are shown in Figure 23 (all-periods model), Figure 24 (PaleoIndian Period Model), Figure 25 (Archaic Period Model) and Figure 26 (Woodland Period Model).

For the Winnipeg study area, a visual comparison of the three models shows that it is immediately apparent that the all-period model has far more areas of high potential than any of the other three models. The Archaic period model shows a much more restricted amount of high potential areas, compared to the traditional predictive model. The Woodland period temporal model has somewhat greater areas of high potential than in the Archaic period predictive model, but there is still a significantly lower amount than the traditional predictive model. The historic period temporal predictive model has the largest area of the temporal models classified as high archaeological potential, but still almost one-third less in area which is classified as high potential in the traditional APM. However, the elevated level of high potential here makes the suitability of the historic period temporal model somewhat suspect as a management tool.

For the MbMF study area, the modelling shows different patterns. The all-period model is a very conservative predictor, with very few areas of high or medium potential evident in the map. The temporal models, by contrast, show much more numerous areas of high and medium archaeological potential. Visually, the models appear to show the opposite pattern to what was seen with the Winnipeg study area models.