Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene

Abstract

Archaeological predictive modeling has been used successfully for over 20 years as a decision-making tool in cultural resources management. Its appreciation in academic circles however has been mixed because of its perceived theoretical poverty. In this paper, we discuss the issue of integrating current archaeological theoretical approaches and predictive modeling. We suggest a methodology for doing so based on cognitive archaeology, middle range theory, and paleoeconomic modeling. We also discuss the problems associated with testing predictive models.

Developing a Collaborative Strategy to Manage and Preserve Cultural Heritage During the Libyan Conflict. The Case of the Gebel Nāfusa

“…For imposing monuments, 3D recording is already a common practice that guarantees the complete storage of every detail of a building (Yastikli 2007;Remondino 2011 Predictive modelling has also been developed on a large scale both for research and conservation purposes, but has been devoted mainly to predict those areas that might contain archaeology (Verhagen and Whitley 2012). Fewer applications of predictive modelling have been focused on mapping areas that will be affected by hazards such as urban sprawl (Danese et al 2013), but these are considered fundamental for areas like Jebel Nāfusa where this particular hazard has been already classified as imminent.…”

Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories

“…However, archaeological practice has certainly moved on since then, and currently archaeologists have generally embraced geographical database management, digital cartography and spatial analysis, if only for reasons of efficiency. To a lesser extent, they have also gradually adopted computer-based modelling as a research tool, although acceptance here has been a lot slower, due to the fact that it has stood in the middle of the processual versus post-processual controversy (see also Verhagen and Whitley 2012). This is part of a larger debate about computing applications in archaeology that has been described as an 'anxiety discourse' by Huggett (2013) and which is a general characteristic of emerging fields trying to establish their scientific identity.…”

“…Tilley 2004). It has however been noted before (Fleming 2006;Verhagen and Whitley 2012) that the rejection of the 'scientific method' by post-processualism contradicts one of its own tenets, i.e. the exploration of multiple and equivalent views of the past.…”

Pathways for Scale and Discipline Reconciliation: Current Socio-Ecological Modelling Methodologies to Explore and Reconstitute Human Prehistoric Dynamics

“…Together with inferences from present-time agronomy and zootechny that both constrain the possible combinations of the farming system (for instance, the permanent fields), such a model may be used for testing hypotheses on the functioning of this past society. Similar models were built with the integration of demographic and social issues along environment, with environment and natural resources shortages and stresses as inputs and variable impacts on the population evolution and differentiation as outputs (Wilkinson et al 2007;Verhagen and Whitley 2012)). The model is conditioned by food requirements and the demand in non-finite resources (firewood, timber, cultivable soils, livestock pasture or forests, hunting and gathering grounds) of individual households with household members varying from 1 to ∞ (mean: 5 to 7) but is driven along time according to family social organization & individually randomized dynamics.…”