09 05 Barcelo

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

1/34

The archaeology of social spaces

1

BEYOND GIS: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOCIAL SPACES

1. GIS APPLICATIONSINARCHAEOLOGY

In archaeology the 90s could be properly called the GIS decade. Geo-graphical Information Systems have appeared as a new revolutionary tool-boxto address many archaeological problems, handle and interpret spatially ref-erenced data sets. Nevertheless, the growing use and increasing sophistica-tion of GIS methods to manage archaeological data is not related to an in-crease in diversity. After two decades on a trial basis it is time to evaluate thecurrent ability of GIS to meet the expectations placed upon them, especiallyconcerning their role on archaeological method and theory.

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we want to summarizethe main trends in Spanish GIS-based applications over the last years using asample of the most recent bibliography. Next, to critically examine and evalu-ate the inherent shortcomings of some existing GIS applications. Finally, toreview different underlying conceptions of space in GIS projects and to pro-pose how such a software can be integrated into a proper theory of socialspace.

The large amount of GIS applications in Spanish archaeology which

have been published during the last years makes difficult to summarize andquantify the main guidelines on this topic. We have only reviewed Spanishprojects that have appeared in the most recent international bibliography(e.g. JOHNSON1994; HUGGET, RYAN1995; LOCK, STANCIC1995; VALDSet al.1995; WILCOCK, LOCKYEAR1995; KAMERMANS, FENNEMA1996; BAENAet al. 1997),as well as in the survey carried out on behalf of the Caere Project by PaolaMoscati, in order to extract the most recurrent features of archaeologicaluses of GIS. In the next table we try to review the variability of GIS applica-tions, their main objectives as well as the kind of data and techniques usedto make archaeological explanations. Since this is not a comprehensive de-

scriptive table but a synthetic scheme, there is obviously considerable over-lap between the different research themes suggested here in terms of theo-retical frameworks and kind of applications. That is the reason why the dif-ferent sections we propose are not mutually exclusive since one single projectmay be engaged in more than one research area as well as sometimes somespecific techniques not reported in this summary may have been used.

Among Spanish projects there seems to be some tendency to establisha dichotomy between cultural heritage management and historical researchprojects mainly due to political and economical reasons. However, practicalapplications show that both cases respond to the very same formulation:

Archeologia e Calcolatori9, 1998, 47-80

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

2/34

J.A. Barcel, M. Pallars

2

SLAOG ELACS ATAD SEUQINHCET

NOITAIRUTNEC etisretnI ;gnisneSetomeR;setanidroocetiS

.yregamIetilletaS gnitsetsesehtopyh,gniddirG

NOISOREGNILLEDOM

etisretnIetisartnI

;)ataddleifdeyevrus(setiS.atadlacigoloeg;atadcihpargopot

noitavelElatigiD:gnippaMsledoM

EGATIREHTNEMEGANAM

etisretnIetisartnI

lacirotsih;)ataddleifdeyevrus(setiStneicna;atadlacigoloeahcra;drocer

sgnidliub

;yreuqesabataddnagnippaMevitpircseddnanoitacifitnauq

spaMksiR;scitsitats

LACIGOLORDYHGNILLEDOM

etisretnIlacirotsih;)ataddleifdeyevrus(setiSdnacihpargoeg,cihpargopot;drocer

yhpargotohplairea;atadcigolordyh

noitavelElatigiD:gnippaMgnissecorPegamI;ledoM

EPACSDNAL

-SISYLANA-cinorhcaiD

etisretnI

lacirotsih;)ataddleifdeyevrus(setiS

latnemnorivne;stcafetra;noitamrofniyhpargotohplairea;atad

noitubirtsidcitameht:gnippaM

,gnilledomraenilnoN;spamscitsitats

EPACSDNAL-SISYLANA

-cinorhcnySetisretnI

;stcafetra;)ataddleifdeyevrus(setiSatadlatnemnorivne

noitavelElatigiD:gnippaMnoitcirf,secafrus-tsoc,sledoM

scitsitats,secafrus

NOITACOL etisretnI

etisartnI

,tra-kcor,setis:atadyevrusdleiF,smetilatem,scihtil,yrettop,slairub

.cte,tnempiuqegnidnirg

noitubirtsidcitameht:gnippaMspam

EVITCIDERPLEDOMNOITACOL

etisretnIesudnal;slairub;setanidroocetiSlacigoloeg;atadcihpargopot;atad

atad

;sisylanagnir;tiborP/tigoLnoissergerraenilesiwpets

DNASDAORNOITACINUMMOC

SKROWTENetisretnI

,nettirw(atadnoitamrofnilacirotsiH)lacigoloeahcra,laro

fonoitaluclaclacitamehtaMtnereffidfoytluciffideht

sdaorevitanretla

LARUR/NABRUSPIHSNOITALER

etisretnI latem;sepytyrettop;sepytetiS

yhpargotohplairea;sdnifrotceted

noitubirtsidcitameht:gnippaMlacitsitatsetairavitlum,spamMED,secafrustsoC;sisylana

YTILIBISIV etisretnI

noitavele(atadlatnemnorivnElacirotsih(esudnal;)yhpargopotdleif(setislacigoloeahcra;)drocer

kcor,stnemunomlautir;)atadyevrus.slairub,tra

noitavelElatigiD:gnippaM,RVemiTkciuQ.ledoM

scitsitatslanretxE

NOITAVACXENOITATNEMUCOD

etisartnI ,stnemides,serutaef;stcafetrAyhpargitartsorcim

cihtamehT:gnippaMspamnoitubirtsid

NOITACIFITNEDIYTIVITCAFO

SAERAetisartnI

lacigoloeahcra,senob,yrettoP.cte,sgnidliub,serutaef

citamehT:gnippaMspamnoitubirtsid

NOITAMROFETISDNASESSECORP

LAROPMET-OITAPSSPIHSNOITALER

etisartnI

foeerged,serutaef,senob,yrettoPlacigolohpromoeg,noitatnemgarf

,atadlacihpargitartsorcimdnayhpargitartslatnozirohdnalacitrev

citamehT:gnippaM-eerht,spamnoitubirtsid

spamlanoisnemid

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

3/34


3

Heritage Management: Its most common use is restricted to the location inspace of archaeological sites and features using both archaeological infor-mation (e.g. count all monuments from the 12th century, count archaeologi-cal sites with stone houses, rectangular floor and three rooms, etc.) andactual information (e.g. list the total number of sites located near the A-17highway, list sites which could be damaged by the construction of the Rialpdam, etc.). The main objective is to create local, regional or national data-bases with all recorded sites in order to prevent them from further deterio-ration and have a potential source of information for future survey and ex-cavation projects. Therefore, in this specific area GIS software is basicallyused to create and maintain large databases, perform cartographically ori-ented database queries and mapping of archaeological elements. Althoughsuch an approach is descriptive, it is not theory-empty. The underlying as-sumption is that there should be a relationship between the archaeologicalfeatures and modern constructions (communication networks, boundaries,buildings etc.). This relationship is called spatial because it deals with spe-cific landscape features.Archaeological Research: In this field efforts have been basically directedtowards the location of sites and features, but this time the structure of thespatial relationships becomes more complex. For example, we may countthe number of sites located in a slope land that have a low erosion risk and ahigh agricultural productivity, and are less than 5 km far from a water source.Unfortunately, in these applications the relational structure continues to bebased on the relationship between the archaeological features and modernnatural or human constructions, since the geographical and ecological infor-mation which is used tends to be actual data. This choice leads to someproblems which will be developed in-depth in the next section.

After a reading of the previous table it is possible to infer that besidesthe locational and cartographic works, which are not very different fromthose developed more than 50 years ago, the majority of projects carried outfocus on the relationship between landscape and ecological, geographical,

geological and archaeological factors, both in a synchronic and a diachronictemporal scale of analysis. It is assumed that the archaeological record has aspatial component which is not observable at a glance, and the role of com-puters and software is to enable the discovering of this complex network ofspatial relationships. Consequently, it is easy to see that todays availablecomputer software allows much more than the mere cartography of ar-chaeological remains to be done.

Maybe the most interesting and promising field is the Predictive Loca-tion Methods in the context of planning, for the protection of the culturalheritage or as an initial preparatory stage in the organization of sampling

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

4/34


4

survey schemes and some other research projects (GARCA, RODRGUEZ1996).These methods try to estimate the likelihood or the probability of archaeo-logical site/feature presence, using patterns of known archaeological site lo-cations in a region, by looking for correlations of the observed variable withother spatial variables (KOHLER, PARKER1986; CARMICHAEL1990; HASENSTAB,RESNICK 1990; KVAMME 1990, 1992; WARREN 1990; DELLA BONA 1993;WHEATLEY1996). These variables usually tend to be environmental factorssuch as relief, elevation, slope, soil type, distance-to-water or geological sub-stratum, whereas in the heritage field, variables tend to be related with mod-ern uses of space: routes, dams, urbanization, etc.

The underlying theoretical frameworks may differ from these envi-ronmental approaches to more cognitive-symbolic studies which are spe-cially focused on the perception of monuments in the landscape and howthese elements communicate visual information. Among these approachesthere are some applications of viewshed analysis such as the intervisibilitybetween monuments (Gonzalez-Oubia, in press), and some studies aboutthe symbolic meaning of prehistoric rock art and ritual monuments (BELLOet

al.1987), in which it is assumed that landscape is given significance by hu-man perception. However these approaches are not essentially different fromprevious environmental landscape works, because they are still based on themeasurable properties of the environment.

Another possible distinction that could be established among Spanish

GIS-based applications is: National-International Large Scale Projects: These are related to the car-

tographic management of large databases in which large means lots ofthousands of records, but a very reduced quantity of descriptive variablesfor each record. These big projects are more related to the cartographicaspects of GIS and the creation and maintenance of databases than a spa-tial analysis in the strict sense. The most typical large national project isthe Cultural Heritage Management project.

Research Small Scale Projects: These are mainly focused on landscape analy-

sis and modelling as well as the correlation between society and land-scape features. These projects are always restricted to relative small andwell delimited areas, which involve the use of small databases, in whichsmall means few records, but a lot of descriptive variables for eachrecord. These uses of GIS software tend to go beyond the simple exami-nation or location of places in a map, trying to model the spatial compo-nent of the archaeological record. Some typical examples of this type ofprojects are the site catchment and site territory exploitation analyses ofone single site or the landscape modelling of a concrete area.

Usually GIS-based applications are related to macro-spatial scale

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

5/34


5

projects (inter-site or regional), because they are focused on environmentaland geographical issues. However, intrasite projects are less common. Thisfact is not due to the lack of suitability of GIS software to deal with intrasitespatial problems, but to the usual characteristics of inter-site archaeologicalinformation; large databases, large surfaces and environmental variableswhich are directly available in a GIS framework. Archaeological excavationsusually cover small areas, where the amount of collected data tends to besmaller and at the same time environmental data have not the same signifi-cance to explain internal spatial organization.

A related problem is that intrasite spatial analysis is linked to the Ameri-can quantitative tradition and some applications might require specializedalgorithms that may not exist in commercial GIS packages. However, thesetechnical problems are not inherent to intrasite spatial analysis and as wehave recently pointed out (BARCEL, PALLARS1996) nowadays there are dif-ferent possibilities to integrate formal statistical analysis in GIS framework.Therefore, neither technical problems nor the size of data sets are consist-ent objections to fail to take advantage of GIS potential to manage, processand analyze intrasite archaeological data. Some recent publications are be-ginning to apply GIS at the intrasite level, manage the documentation inarchaeological excavations, reconstruct site formation processes and try toidentify activity areas (e.g. BISWELLet al.1995; MEFFERT1995; THEUNISSEN1996). However these intrasite applications have not yet exploited the full

potential of GIS and do not tend to go beyond the scope of the descriptivedistribution mapping.

The choice of the available GIS software to perform data managementand analysis responds as well to this double typology. On the one hand, somebig powerful programmes such as ArcInfo are used because they are suitableto manage and mapping large databases, on the other, programmes such asIDRISI or GRASS in which the analytical capabilities (tools for spatial analy-sis) are more important than the ability to manipulate large amounts of data.

In relation to the analytical techniques which have been more com-monly applied in GIS-based analysis, a quick look through the table shows

that analysis is normally restricted to mapping, in its different forms distri-bution maps, thematic maps and three dimensional maps together withsome restricted analytical procedures such as polygon overlay, buffering,interpolation, zoning, digital elevation models and cost surfaces. In somecases some univariate and multivariate statistical techniques are applied out-side the GIS framework and their results are projected onto a GIS layer.

Apart from the practical applications which have been taken into ac-count in the previous discussion, in the latest years there has been an in-creasing debate concerning the analytical capabilities and the underlying theo-retical basis of many archaeological GIS based analyses (e.g. WHEATLEY1993;

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

6/34


6

GAFFNEY, VANLEUSEN1995; GAFFNEY, STANCIC, WATSON1995; HARRIS, LOCK1995; VERHAGENet al.1995; BARCEL, PALLARS1996; GILLINGS1996; VOORRIPS1996). However, very little attention on these topics has been paid by Span-ish archaeologists. These contributions reflect that GIS has reached a stageof maturity and that before continuing with some mechanical applications itis time to pause and evaluate the work carried out in order to face GISfuture successfully.

2. A CRITICALVIEWOFGIS TECHNOLOGY

As we have previously seen, GIS software is used to discover a rela-tional structure (proximity in the physical space) which cannot be observed

without a scientific instrument. Recovering and describing the spatialityof archaeological phenomena is a very ancient goal, which can be alreadyfound in Kossinna, before the Second World War. The only difference is thatat that time maps were drawn by hand and today maps are drawn by a pow-erful computer. It is important to realize that the map is the instrument, andnot the computer.

During the 50-60s, archaeologists continued believing that maps con-stituted the basic interpretative tool in archaeology, because at that time thesocial dynamics were considered a mere product of the movement and re-placement of populations. Any observable change in the archaeological record

was attributed to a population movement. So, the creation of cartographieswith the different idiosyncratic types of archaeological materials enabledthe modelling of migrations and, therefore, the reconstruction of historicaldynamics.

Since the 70s this theoretical framework was replaced by an approachwhich explained archaeological changes by means of their correlation withecological changes. Mapping enabled to mark out site-catchment areaswithin which economic resources could be evaluated and quantified. Theprevalence of paleoecological underlying orientation in actual GIS projectsdemonstrates that this paradigm is not yet overcome. Although these projects

should be oriented to the study of the relationship between Society and Space,this objective has been replaced by the relationship between Society andLandscape. The concept Landscape is considered as the humanization ofthe physical space, that is, the necessary resources that human societies usefrom the surface of the earth for their survival and reproduction.

From our point of view, there are some evident inherent constraintsand conceptual errors in GIS-based applications which try to study the cor-relation between Society and Landscape throughout time. First, there hasbeen some confusion and misunderstanding using the concepts of terri-tory, landscape and social space. Space has been artificially restricted

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

7/34


7

to the notion of Landscape which is likewise erroneously defined. Althoughevidences of past human action are relatively clear (the archaeological record),evidences of past landscapes are not so easily observable due to the manydifferent processes that have acted upon them. As well as human society, thelandscape has been continually modified and changed by successive cyclesof transformation throughout time. It can be buried, eroded or modified bygeological-geomorphological processes as well as anthropic activities suchas the very sequences of successive human occupations. Despite these cir-cumstances the ancient landscape is usually estimated by means of the ele-ments we know from the actual landscape, incoherently assuming that menand women acted in the past upon the same landscape in which we actuallylive and act.

This correlation between ancient society and landscape is more sig-nificant in the Cultural Heritage Management (rural and urban planning),because in this case the study is focused on the risk that actual social actionsdamage or destroy evidences of past societies. CHM has been frequentlyunderestimated because of the inherent political and economical interestsrelated to its exploitation as well as its data-acquisition orientation, in con-trast to research projects, more focused on data-analysis. However and para-doxically its underlying assumptions are more accurate because they pre-tend to conserve and prevent actual cultural landscape from actual socialactions, and thus they are adequately using actual geographical-ecological

data. These uses of GIS are closer to the original geographic conception ofGIS technologies. Nevertheless, in historical research we are dealing with adifferent object of study, the spatial component of past social actions, andthus the correlation between ancient society and actual landscape has lesssignificance.

Within the archaeological GIS-based projects summarized in the tableit is usual to define territory as the set of natural resources located within asite-catchment area or a site exploitation territory. The objective of this sortof analyses is to evaluate and quantify the potential resources of the terri-tory in which a settlement or production area is located, assuming that dis-

tance to resources determines site location. These approaches to land-usestrategies, borrowed from geographic economical theory, assume that sub-sistence and productive activities are reduced to a rational economic behav-iour which is a consequence of the human capacity of ecological adaptationto the environment. Proximity relationships are defined in different ways,both using an arbitrary radius (5 m/10 km) around sites and calculating thedistance covered by an adult 1 or 2-hour walk. GIS software includes somesophisticated methods to automatically define these areas by calculating bufferzones, cost-surfaces, slope maps and degrees of accessibility. All these opera-tions are performed by means of actualistic parameters such as: actual fertil-

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

8/34


8

ity of soil, topography, erosion risk, actual exploitable resources, actual wa-ter sources, actual distribution of vegetable species, actual rainfall and sun-shine, etc. (e.g. GAFFNEY, STANC

IC

1991; KVAMME1992; BAENAet al. 1997).These analyses disregard the fact that the articulation of sites and archaeo-logical features is not necessarily testable with this kind of data.

Moreover, these uses of GIS which produce models that focus on rela-tionships between regional site distribution and mappable attributes of theenvironment reflect an environmentally deterministic approach to archaeo-logical explanation (WHEATLEY1993; GAFFNEY, VANLEUSEN1995; HARRIS, LOCK1995; BARCEL, PALLARS1996). The easy of use and the visual graphic spec-tacular quality of GIS software has led archaeologists to choose the simplestway: working with environmental ecological variables that are relatively sim-ple to map and which easily fit the prevalent GIS data model and correlatethem with archaeological information we will get cheap and spectacularresults. Unfortunately, these applications do not pay enough considerationto whether these data sets are adequate to explain real prehistoric socio-spatialorganization. Used in such a way, powerful computer programmes arecounter-productive.

The error is not in the toolbox or the techniques but in the way peopleuse them. Archaeologists are using these simple and reductionist approachesnot because they fit the prevalent models of social dynamics but becausethey are the more suitable for a simple way to work with the actual GIS

software. However, GIS does not impose a conceptual model neither a spe-cific kind of interpretation. The results of its application depend only on thequestions formulated by the researcher (previous hypothesis) and on thereliability of available data.

If we had some reliable information about the landscape characteris-tics in past times, even for that periods without a written record about weath-ering and the productivity of human endeavour in the landscape, this para-dox could be solved. In some cases there are some attempts to evaluate thepaleoenvironmental side of the relationship between society and landscapeby means of really ancient paleo-ecological data (e.g. LPEZet al.1991; VANDERLEEUW 1995), and this is probably the most profitable research area.However, we must take into account that there is something else than therelationship between archaeological and paleo-ecological data and this some-thing else is what seems still to be out of the scope of GIS software, as theyhave been commonly applied.

So, actual attempts to establish a correlation between society and land-scape are heading for disaster, not just because of the common inadequateuse of actualistic data, but because of the inaccurate conceptualization of thesame correlation. Until recently, classical GIS spatial analysis has mainly fo-cused on assuming that spatial patterns are a product of ecological adapta-

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

9/34


9

tion, but are independent from its social context. This argument is a conse-quence of the widespread assumption that the development of preindustrialsocieties is inextricably linked to the land and then cannot be wholly under-stood outside the context of relationships between societies and natural re-sources. However, a site-catchment area is not comparable to social space.It is only that piece of exploitable natural space within the reach of a humangroup. Even though almost all social scientists consider that the spatiality ofsocial action is something else than the mere accessibility to exploitable natu-ral resources, archaeological GIS applications seem to be far from this as-sumption, to the point that most of GIS models that have been summarizedin the table involve such an artificial reductionist and erroneous conceptionof the spatiality of social actions.

Recently, some authors seem to think that given the inferential link-ages between past landscape use and social relationships, archaeology canbenefit from an approach that more explicitly delineates relationships be-tween systems of land use and land tenure, the social means through whichpeople define and assert land use rights (ADLER1996). Conceived in this waythe territory is not only the amount of natural resources, but a socializednatural space, that is, a space transformed by social actions carried out by ahuman group. Territories are spatial units that encompass the broadest rangeof a societys land-use behaviours as well as the history of human interac-tions with the natural landscape (GILI1995; CASTROet al. 1996; ADLER1996;

ZEDEO1997). They are spatial units that result from the cumulative use ofland and resources through time. All realms of societal life involve human-landinteractions, a large number of which modify the landscape permanently.They can be studied using GIS software because they are aggregates of threekinds of objects: land, natural resources and objects of human manufacture.

Although this conception of territory and social space entails an im-provement with regard to classical site catchment analyses, they do not mir-ror the multidimensionality of social space. In the next pages we will try toprove that landscape is interesting only when viewed as something consti-tuted, reproduced or changed by social relations, and in turn constraining

the unfolding of such relationships (COUCLELIS1991). Therefore whicheveranalysis of a social reality might distinguish, following the proposal byLEFEBVRE(1974), between:

spatial practices (our perceptions); representations of space (our conceptions); spaces of representation (lived space).

The basic idea we defend is that space forms an integrated part ofsocial practices and/or social processes, and that such practices and proc-

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

10/34


10

esses are all situated in space (and time) and all inherently involve a spatialdimension (SIMONSEN1996). Conceived in this way, relationships betweenSociety and Landscape are much more complex than actual GIS-based ap-plications pretend. The possibilities and inherent constraints on how to iso-late, measure and record digitally the variables relevant to social theory in aGIS framework will be developed in next sections.

3. TOWARDSATHEORYOFSOCIALSPACE

As we have previously seen, the structure and form in which GIS pack-ages are used condition the sort of spatial relationships which archaeologistsare able to discover. In these pages our objective is to try to provide the

basic constituents for a theory of social space which may give meaning tological operations performed by GIS software. In face of the actual differen-tiation between materialist theories whose objective is the study of thesocial uses of the natural space (productive activities) , and idealist theo-ries focused on the symbolic conceptualization of the perceived space ,we have decided to adopt a more global approach which integrates in ahomogeneous theoretical framework the most significant elements of thedifferent theories.

According to the materialist theory (CASTROet al.1996), the geographicspace contains a series of natural elements which shape it and at the same

time are indicators of its environmental conditions. In other words, the geo-graphical space is the set of natural elements (including social agents) andthe spatial relationships between them. As a consequence of the human ac-tion upon the geographical-natural space, space acquires a social meaningbecause of the appropriation of natural matter by men and women. In otherwords, production, distribution and consumption take place in a physicalspace, and as a consequence this physical space becomes transformed, so-cialized.

Therefore, to a strict materialist approach social space is an abstrac-tion from the relations between its constituents (resources, agents, means of

production) (SAYER1985; SCHATZKI1991). The analysis is focused on the in-teraction between social agents and how this interaction is conditioned bythe relational structure between the same social agents (social distance basedon the access to the means of production). However, very little attention ispaid to spatial relationships (topological, metrical, qualitative) which link ordetach non-productive activities performed by the different members of acommunity. From such a conception, features of space are thus little morethan epiphenomena of non-spatial social processes, the mere territorial pro-jection of the social relations, and particularly the relations of production(GOTTDINER1991, 1994).

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

11/34


11

The point of departure of idealist theories is exactly the opposite, con-sidering space as a mental cognitive design (e.g. THOMAS1991, 1996; BENDER1992, 1993; WERLEN1993; PEARSON, RICHARDS1994; TILLEY1994; WHEATLEY1995). Space is conceived as a cultural manifestation of mental processesand structures, but unlike structuralism, these structures are not universalbut particular, contextual and historical. Attention is paid to the individualrather than to social relationships. Thus, the same space can become differ-ent settings, that is, it can be used differently and mean different things, atdifferent times, which is tantamount to the organization of time. The differ-ent ways in which a space is organized can be understood as a physicalexpression of cognitive schemata, which are culture specific and becomefundamental to understand the spatial organization (RAPOPORT1982; 1994).

Idealist theories focus on the study of the spatial causality of any indi-vidual action. These actions are always performed according to a particularintentionality (individual intention) and thus, with a directionality (WERLEN1993). Approaching to the directionality of social action leads directly to thestudy of places of attraction, centres of activity, human significance andemotional attachment. In this sense the concept of space appears as a moreabstract construct which only provides the situational context for places butderives its meaning from particular places and actions which took and aretaking place within it (RELPH1976; TILLEY1994).

Whereas to the materialist theory the prime causal factor is the whole

of productive actions and their attached social relations of production (acresto resources, land appropriation, etc.), to the idealist theory the whole ofsocial actions, both productive and unproductive, are taken into accountbecause all of them take place in a geographical space. In this case whatdetermines the structure and nature of social space is the movement throughspace, the directionality, the individual motivation and the place in whichdifferent actions are performed as well as the place in which the perform-ance of some specific actions is forbidden. The consideration of the indi-vidual motivation as one of the fundamental constitutive factors of socialspace leads to its individualisation and its multiplication. So, the social space

is just a social agents personal conceptualization of the spatial location ofthe physical (natural and artificial) and social (other agents) elements whichsurround them.

In this way, to postprocessual theories, the landscape is analogous to amultidimensional text which is continually altered, read, written and inter-preted (DUNCAN, DUNCAN1988; THOMAS1991; TILLEY1994, etc.). Monumentsand architectonical features are considered as the equivalents of written dis-course, as elements which are inscribed in a specific landscape as parts of achain of signification. The physical and geographical space is transformedinto social, as a result of its symbolic appropriation by social agents. This

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

12/34


12

symbolisation depends on the accumulation of individual and collective ex-periences (not necessarily productive) of every place in which some mean-ingful actions have been performed. So, there is not one single natural land-scape, but multiple subjective landscapes, which are significantly built inrelation to human action and activity. The meaning of a particular spacedepends on who is experiencing it and how, and thus it is a result of socialpractice (TILLEY1994). Therefore, the experience of space is not innocentand neutral, but invested with power relating to age, gender, social positionand relationships with other individuals within the community (FOUCAULT1975, 1977; THOMAS1991; TILLEY1994).

Even though we cannot underestimate the role of symbolic factors inthe construction of a theory of social space, accepting individual motivationas the only explanatory factor is too limited to provide a full sense of socialaction. These subjective images of space are just one of the constitutive ele-ments of social space. As GOSDEN(1994) has pointed out, the symbolic as-pect of the landscape is derived from the actions carried out in it. Unlike thisapproach, we think that space is produced, experienced and shared by aseries of individuals which exist in society, and thus are affected by socialrelationships. Space may be defined in the minds of social actors, but alwaysas an answer to specific social actions, which are performed according tothe social relations of production (GOTTDIENER1991). Reducing space merelyto a coded message and reducing science to a representation of that code,

avoids the actual knowing of space, that is to say, the generative processthrough which this coding was constructed and produced (SWYNGEDOUW1992).

The different theoretical paradigms which have been previously ap-proached deal with the following dimensions of space:1) A natural spacewhich is given shape by the existing exploitable resources,that are geographically arranged according to distance and proximity rela-tionships. Natural space is thus independent of social action but it has itsown internal dynamics.2) A social spacewhich is given shape by social agents, who are spatially

arranged according to social distance relationships between them. This so-cial space has two different manifestations:2.1. The territory: It corresponds to the socialization of the natural

space and consists on the management (planned or not planned) of the ma-teriality (natural resources) which social practices demand (ADLER 1996;CASTRO et al. 1996; ZEDEO 1997). Thus, it is a socialized physical spacewhere the set of human relationships are performed. Modern references toland tenure systems (ADLER1996) might be included in this section. Landtenure systems are complex risk-buffering strategies that are conditioned bythe labour invested in food production, the size of groups holding direct

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

13/34


13

access to productive lands and resources, and the temporal duration of landaccess rights (ADLER1996). Conceived in this way land tenure systems com-prise sets of social strategies that human groups develop to alleviate envi-ronmental uncertainty by socially circumscribing human use of productiveresources. Therefore, land tenure can be generally defined as the systems ofrights and privileges that human groups use to protect their resources andresource areas from outsiders.

2.2. The social landscape, which from a materialist approach corre-sponds to the symbolic universe by means of which a society perceives thesocial space (CASTROet al., 1996), and from an idealist approach is the mul-tiple differential individual experiences of the social space (e.g. THOMAS1991;BENDER1993; TILLEY1994).

Theoretical discussion on the conception of social space has been largelyfuelled by a dichotomous polarity both in archaeology and other social sci-ences between these materialist and idealist approaches. Although the inher-ent subjectivity of idealist theories have been largely criticized by the proc-essual archaeological community, materialist approaches are not significantlybetter, because of their empiricist conception of space, as a natural ob-servable entity, and as a mere implicit background for human action.

From our point of view social action should not be seen as secondaryand dependent on the environment and the original distribution of resources

in space, because it embraces the whole set of imaginable formes of interac-tion between social agents. Likewise social space might not be restricted tothe mere socialization of a natural space, but it is the very social actionwhich creates its own social space. So, we defend a theory of social actionwhich highlights the topological network of social actions as the principaldimension of social space. From this theoretical point of view, social space isconceived as any network of spatial relationships linking any set of socialunits (BARCEL, PALLARS1996). Social units are both social agents and so-cial activities, in such a way that there will be many different and simultane-ous social spaces: the social space of productive activities, the social space of

reproductive activities, the social space created by war, the social space cre-ated by exchange, etc. Conceived in this way social space is not absolute butrelational. It depends on the underlying network of social actions, that is theinterrelations among objects, objects and individuals, individuals and indi-viduals, individuals and activities, as well as on the dynamics (ecological,geological) of natural space. All these relationships are creating/defining spaceand time, as well as the spacing (and timing) of phenomena also enables andconstrains the relationships themselves (MASSEY1992).

The first social action is, obviously, the appropriation of natural re-sources to allow the social agent survival. This action takes place on the

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

14/34


14

surface of the earth (container of both the natural resources and the socialagents), but it creates a specific form of social space. There are also unpro-ductive actions (killing a neighbour, participating in a ceremony, etc.) re-lated to the social reproduction of social agents and their community. Theseactions are produced not only on the surface of the earth, but on a socialspace produced by a previous social action (in this case, the preliminaryappropriation of subsistence goods) as well. When the same social agentrepeats the one productive action, it will be performed not in the prelimi-nary social space, but in a social space transformed by whatever previousaction. All these statements mean that the web of social actions and relation-ships take always place in a natural space which has been transformed into asocial space by previous social actions. The temporal sequence of productiveand reproductive actions create a complex topological network of socialactions and social agents in different temporal and spatial locations. There-fore, from this theoretical point of view, space is both social and natural, butmore social than natural, because social relations are the main causal factorsof social action. Social interaction is then the main key to understand howsocial agents act in a social group, and these causes are not only subsistencebased, but reproductive in their broadest sense (social and not biological).

Therefore, unlike the static conception of space maintained by theextreme materialist approaches, we defend that there is neither any socialstructure nor spatial ordering of social actions which can be defined as a

fixed entity. Relational structure of social activities is not constant neitherstatic, but it is dynamic because it is produced not only in space but through-out time too. From such an approach space and time cannot be seen as ab-stract qualities providing the medium of social action, but rather as dimen-sions created through the concrete operation of social actions (GOSDEN1994).So, the continuum of social actions in time and space constantly have anaffect on previous spatial arrangements, conditioning next social actions andconstituting the dynamic nature of any social relationship. The assumptionthat the social and the spatial are inseparable and that the spatial form of thesocial has some effect in subsequent social actions is now accepted increas-

ingly widely, especially in geography and sociology (e.g. LEFEBVRE1974; SOJA1980, 1985, 1989, 1996; GREGORY, URRY1985; GOTTDIENER1991, 1994; MASSEY1992; SIMONSEN1996).

According to this theoretical approach, space is not just a property(location, distance, etc.) of a social activity, but it has to be conceptual-ized as a dimension of social action and thus as the social possibility forengaging in action. The spatial distribution of natural resources are not thecausal factor of social action, but social actions are the cause for other socialactions. Social space is the omnipresent precondition for the developingconfigurations of activities that partly constitute the relational dimension of

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

15/34


15

social spatiality (SCHATZKI1991). Thus, social actions exist insofar as theyare inscribed in space and in this way they produce space. But this space, asa material product of a social process acts back on social processes limiting,constraining, and providing use values for the next moment so that bothaction in space and the action of space produce a societys unique environ-ment (LEFEBVRE1974; SOJA1989; GOTTDIENER1991, 1994). Space is there-fore simultaneously material object or product, the medium of social rela-tions, and the reproducer of material object and social relations.

4. ANARCHAEOLOGYOFSOCIALSPACES

As we have previously discussed, social space cannot be only reduced

to the empirical reality of the world in which we live or to the social uses ofnatural resources we need to live. Social space denotes any set of entities (inour case, social agents) to which may be attached associated attributes orproperties defined on that set. To become spatial, a relationship should bebased on any quantitative or qualitative property of data varying spatially,that is, whose value varies from one entity to another with some appearanceof continuity, and which contribute to explain the dependency relationshipsbetween those entities (MATHRON1965; CRESSIE1991; VOIRONCANICIO1993;BARCEL, PALLARS1996).

Different essays have been undertaken in order to characterize the

basic spatial properties, from which the remaining spatial relationships de-rive. One of the possible strategies developed is to make the same kind ofdistinction that has been used for the temporal sequence, by means of thetwo axes of a Cartesian coordinate system. Object boundaries are then pro-jected onto the two axes and a pair [x-Relation, y-Relation] is used to givethe relative position of objects (HERNANDEZ 1994). Location is, therefore,the key concept because all other relationships (distance, orientation, etc.)can be obtained from it. As well as location in time is relative, location inspace is also relative, because the Cartesian coordinate system does not existin real space, but it is only an analytical convention. However, there are

some fixed reference points both in the temporal sequence and in spatialordering. Once a fact has been produced in a moment, it can be used tomeasure the temporal distance (according to an artificial scale of time) fromother facts. The same is possible with spatial locations. We call geo-referencingto the construction of this fixed objective reference points, usually on thebasis of the physical features of the landscape (natural space) whose exist-ence is independent of social actions.

Spatial representation (a map of locations) is then a model of reality.Spatial relationships between archaeological entities do not exist in real worldas empirical laws of nature, but they become a means for describing the

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

16/34


16

ordering of units and the way in which some properties of units vary fromone location to another.

We define an arrayas any collection of entities (varying spatially ornot), a pattern as any ordered array, and a structureas any set of relation-ships (spatial or not) between entities in a pattern (LOEB1976). But the mainspatial unit of analysis is thearrangement, that is the order in which spatiallocations (represented as points in a surface) appear on a view when scan-ning it from, say, left to right from an embedded point of view (HERNANDEZ1994). So, whereas structure can be referred to any relationship of order-ing, spatial or not, an arrangement is only a spatial ordering of locations.

We call spatial analysis the analysis of the pattern of spatial regularitiesamong locations in an arrangement. In our case, we are studying the spatialvariability of social actions. Making things, using things, exchanging thingsor people, killing people or animals, breeding animals, herding, cutting tim-ber, celebrating ceremonies... all these are examples of social actions, andthey are performed in the landscape and they spatially configurate a socialspace. In other words, our objective is to analyze how a social action variesfrom one location to another, and if there is some kind of regularity in thisspatial variation. We are enlarging the usual materialist definition of socialspace, considering the location of all imaginable social actions, and not onlyproductive actions. As we have stressed along this paper, space is not onlythe location of resources and social space is not only the social uses of

these resources, but it contains the spatial properties among all social ac-tions, and how this spatial structure conditions and determines the realiza-tion of other social actions. We are studying social interaction, that is, howpeople contact other people, the causes of these contacts, and their conse-quences (social inequality, power relationships, etc.). We are conscious thatsocial interaction is mostly a product of social division of labour, but thisdivision is not expressed only through the use of natural resources but as apattern of differences and dependencies among social agents, and a flow ofthings (labour instruments, raw products, manufactured products) and in-formation among social agents linked by a network of spatial dependencies.

Consequently, an analysis of the differences and dependencies among thelocation points of social actions should give us a better representation tounderstand how social interaction is built and reproduced, as well as theconsequences of the specific means of interaction adopted.

The shape and intensity of the spatial variability of a social action andthe spatial correlation between different social actions can be described geo-metrically, calculating the ordering of points (location of social actions) bymeans of different distance metrics: euclidean (Minkowski, City-block,Mahalanobis, etc.) and non-euclidean. But it is also possible to verballydescribe and classify the same pattern of regularities among locations, using

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

17/34


17

the same spatial prepositions than in natural language (e.g. near, at, in, on,between), or even in a more complex way (left of, attached to, overlapping,inside, etc.; cf. WASSERMAN, LEIBOWITZ 1983; LUX, RIT 1988; EGENHOFER,FRANZOSA 1991; HERNANDEZ 1994). In other words, we can describe andmeasure: topological relations (how the boundaries of two or more social entities

relate) between social agents, social actions and/or social agents and so-cial actions;

metric relations in terms of distances and directions between social agents,social actions and/or social agents and social actions;

qualitative relations concerning the partial and total order of spatial ob-

jects between social agents, social actions and/or social agents and socialactions.

Archaeologically we only have an ambiguous and uncertain evidenceof an action and the location where it was once performed. An arrangementof bones is not a direct evidence of a hunting or butchering primary activityarea, because different agents including biogenic, geogenic and anthropo-genic processes can have acted upon the original arrangement altering ortransforming its original structure. In spatial analysis it has been very oftenassumed that artifact concentrations can directly map activity areas. From

these kind of approaches material concentrations have been used as a goodsurrogate for the location of spatial actions.Nevertheless, it is important to consider that any pure inductive ap-

proach cannot directly reconstruct the social action on the basis of its mate-rial correlates. First, spatial distribution of artifact location does not neces-sarily reflect activity organization, since more than one single process canhave contributed to the formation of archaeological spatial distributions.There is a big variety of transformational process with different dimensionsand temporal rhythms that can have acted upon the archaeological record,disturbing or erasing any traces of the original relationship between social

actions and their material correlates. Second, the archaeological record isnot the result of one single action which can be easily isolated, but of acombination of social actions. The manufacture of a pottery vessel, for in-stance, is the result of a complex network of interrelated actions which leavesome evidences on the final artifact spatial arrangement. Consequently, ifwe use activity areas as surrogates for the location of social actions, weshould take into account the fact that:

activity areas are not simple partitionings of physical space (the surfacewhere the action is supposed to have been performed), but dispersed ar-rangements of points, with more or less structure, in which different ob-

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

18/34


18

jects and features are distributed into spatially distinct units or loci, eachcorresponding to a single social action or group of related actions andactivities;

activity areas are not necessarily restricted to specialized spatial units butthe most of times they are agglomerated or multifunctional spatial units,characterized by the overlapping of different social actions.

Consequently, a single map of artifacts cannot be used as a surrogatefor a map of social actions. Instead, we propose a deductive approach whoseobjective is not to perform a partition of natural space in activity areas,but to create a spatial distribution map with the probability for an action.

As in any deductive approach we start by obtaining some knowledge

about the specific relationship between artifacts and social actions (bymiddle-range research: ethnoarchaeologically or experimentally), for instance,the spatial distribution of animal bones is related with the social action ofhunting in a wayx. The same distribution of bones is related to the socialaction of butchering in a wayy, etc. Or in the macro-level scale, the spatialdistribution of sites of type Tis related to the social action of access to aterritory in a wayz, or the spatial distribution of pottery of type Pamongsites of type Tis related to the social action of exchange in a way w. Conse-quently, we will not obtain a map showing the hunting, butchering or ex-change areas (regions where these actions were performed), but a map with

the probability that in locationLan action like hunting, butchering, or ex-change has been performed. Instead of a a single map with different activityareas, we should build a map for every social action.

Once we have hypothesized the relation between the formation proc-esses of the archaeological record (social actions which originated a specificartifact type), we can transform the artifact location points in a map withthe probability of that action. What we are proposing is nothing more thanthe translation of the uncertainty of social action location into a probability;the presence of many sites with uncertainties leads to cumulative probabili-ties, so that one then finishes up with a map of fuzzy sets, that can be ad-

equately represented by isopleth (contour) maps, or as perspective diagrams.This is not a totally new perspective, because it partially agrees withsome postulates defended by WIEMER (1995) and with the underlying phi-losophy of Predictive Location Models, which also try to estimate the likeli-hood or the probability of archaeological site/feature presence, using pat-terns of known archaeological site locations in a region, by looking for correla-tions of the observed variable with other spatial variables (e.g. KOHLER, PARKER1986; CARMICHAEL 1990; HASENSTAB, RESNICK 1990; KVAMME 1990, 1992;WARREN1990; DELLABONA1993; GARCA, RODRGUEZ1996; WHEATLEY1996).

Our approach relies on a prior hypothesis of spatial smoothness, which

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

19/34


19

considers that two neighbouring observations are supposed to have beenmore likely originated from the same group than two observations lying farapart. In other words, the probability that a social action occurs at a specificlocation is related to the occurrence of its material effects (archaeologicalrecord) at nearby locations, and the probability of measuring the same valuedecreases with increasing distance from the sample location. Admittedly ar-tifact distributions are discrete, but post-depositional mixing processes maymake it reasonable to treat artifact densities as more-or-less continuous.

All these assumptions are sound from a geo-statistical point of view. Ingeographic units data are tied together, like bunches of grapes or balls in anurn. According to Toblers First Law of Geography (TOBLER1979; ANSELIN,GETIS1992): everything is related to everything else, but near things aremore related than distant things. This statement simply implies that weshould expect stronger probabilities where artifacts have been found closerand in more dense accumulation.

Nevertheless, although these assumptions are correct from a geographi-cal perspective, they are wrong to an archaeological approach, because spa-tial properties of social actions are not necessarily similar at nearby sites inspace. In other words, the archaeological record is not distributed continu-ously along the physical space, because the social actions which produced itwere performed discretely over the same physical space. In Geographyand Geo-Statistics, it is assumed that data point locations are only a piece of

the original information, consequently contour maps are developed to infervalues at particular places between the sampling points. Geographical infor-mation (land use, mineral resources, etc.) have a continuous nature and there-fore inductive methods that generalize from partial information are adequate.However, archaeological information is intrinsically discrete. Social actionis not performed at different degrees over a surface but in specific locationsin which its material consequences appear. However, most of the remainingsurface has not any evidence of the social action, because it was not per-formed there. Geostatistical methods would perfectly fit archaeological pur-poses if social space was continuous (all infinite points in the surface had a

degree of the social action), but this is not the case.However, geostatistical tools can be of great utility in archaeology if

we do not use them in order to cluster artifacts and get a map with thelocation of social actions, but as a method to translate some uncertainties interms of probabilities, because this measure is a continuous function. Inorder to undertake such an approach we need: to hypothesize the relationship between the action and their material cor-

relates, defining all actions which produced this particular archaeologicalrecord;

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

20/34

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

21/34


21

of probabilities of such actions as surrogates for the location of these ac-tions.

We have also stressed that probability maps should not be equated toactivity areas, because an activity area is a very complex spatial entity wheremore than a single social action was performed during a period of time.Probability maps are synchronic representations of a single action in a fixedmoment. Activity areas may be defined by an adequate processing of pre-liminary probability maps. Once we have made deductive assumptions aboutthe relationship between social actions and their archaeological material cor-relates, and we have calculated the probability maps of all social actionsinvolved, spatial analysis follows by analyzing the ordering and topologicalrelationships existing in every single map. The goal is to detect any evidenceof spatial dependence among the different locations where the action wasprobably performed. If a high or low probability of a social actionA(forinstance exchange) in a locationLis related with a high or low probabilityof the same social action in another (maybe neighbour) locationLL, we willconclude the existence of spatial dependence.

Why is so important the detection of spatial dependence? Because itallows to measure the degree of spatial continuity (uniformity/evenness) inthe performance of a social action. Some social actions may have been pro-duced in a centralized way in a single location, whereas some other actionsmay have been performed simultaneously in different locations, in a distrib-

uted way. These differences are important to evaluate the causal effects ofsocial actions and how they contribute to define social spaces. Topology isthe study of continuity. A topological space is thus one in which the onlyrelevant spatial relationship is contiguity. Some important definitions for thisconceptualization are the following ones: a regionalized variable is a function of space whose value varies from one

location to another with some appearance of continuity, but this continu-ity cannot be approached by any linear law (MATHRON 1965; VOIRONCANICIO1993);

a field is a region which from the point of view of the phenomenon stud-ied has some kind of homogeneity. In this region we accept the hypoth-esis of stationarity, that is, in the field spatial variation laws are the sameeverywhere (CRESSIE1991).

GIS software allows the description of these spatial entities using: geometric variables such as distance, length, perimeter, area, point-location

intersection and union; topological operators such as neighbourhood, next link in a polyline net-

work, left and right polygons of a polyline, start and end nodes of polylines;

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

22/34


22

spatial comparison operators such as intersects, inside, larger than, out-side, neighbour of, etc.

Consequently, we are trying to discover the existence of continuousareas linking all locations with the same value on the probability function(WALL1972; SIMS1976; HUSAIN1977). If physical space can be partitioned inthis way, we will infer the existence of a spatial dependence structure in thearrangement of locations for those social actions. It is important to realizethat the goal of spatial analysis is not to produce a list of geometric proper-ties of the arrangement of locations. The shape (borders, continuity, neigh-bourhood relationships) of the arrangement should explain us somethingabout how the social action was performed in space.

Spatial properties of a single action are important in themselves, butspecially because the social space, that is the arrangement of the social ac-tion locations, conditions and determines the performance of other socialactions. Therefore, the main objective of spatial analysis is the spatial corre-lation of different social actions: how the spatial distribution of an actionhas an influence over the spatial distribution of other(s) action(s). We wantto discover if high or low probabilities of action A are related with high orlow probabilities of action B in the same location or in neighbouring loca-tions. The result is also a measure of spatial dependence, but now at a mul-tidimensional level: dependence among locations is not the product of a sin-

gle action, but a multidimensional set of social actions.GIS software is specially good for this task. Its main feature is its ca-pacity to overlay different arrangements of geo-referenced points, and thisis exactly what we need. Spatial correlation should be calculated by overlap-ping probability maps of different social actions, once these maps have beengeo-referenced to the same coordinate system.

Specially relevant for us are the possibilities to compute mathematicaland boolean operations with points and clusters of points (arrangements,regionalized variables and fields, see supra). This paradigm is based on theMapAlgebra formalized language for expressing GIS functions developed

by C. Dana Tomlin (KIRBY, PAZNER1990; TOMLIN1991, 1994; MILLS1994).Raster-based Layers in Map Algebra are sets of georeferenced numbers thatrepresent geographical features (rivers, elevation, soil types, etc.). In ourcase, a probability map can be defined as a layer too, because its georefer-enced numbers represent the location of a single action. Here representationis raster-based because data (social actions) cannot be expressed in spatialobjects such as points, lines, polygons, or networks, but through spatial quali-ties such as distance, direction, narrowness, density, rate of change, etc.(TOMLIN1994).

The core of MapAlgebra language consists on a set of operators to

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

23/34


23

mathematically combine different layers. Here, interpretive capabilities areorganized much like data: in elementary yet complementary units. Each ofthe data-processing units is a map algebraic operation which, like any con-ventional algebraic operation, accepts one or more variables as an input andgenerates a single variable as an output. In this case, however, variables in-volved are not merely numbers but layers (probabilities used as fuzzy num-bers). According to Tomlin there are only four fundamental types of spatialoperators:

local operationscompute a new value for every location as a function ofthe existing value(s) that is associated with the location on one or morespecified layers. This function may count the number of dissimilar values

associated with each location, compute arithmetic sums, differences, prod-ucts, ratios, report statistical means, medians, maxima, minima, modes.For instance, using command Add Exchange Pottery Map to ExchangeLithic Map to Exchange Metal Map we will obtain a probability map ofthe locations for any form of exchange. Or we can calculate the ratiobetween the actions Lithic decortication, lithic knapping, and lithic re-touching and we will get a probability map of the location of a lithicmanufacture activity area;

zonal operationscompute a new value for each location as a function ofthe existing values from one layer that are associated with that locations

zone on another specified layer. For example, count the dissimilar valuesassociated with each zone; compute the relative magnitude of each loca-tions value as compared with others in its zone. A simple archaeologicalexample would be adding the individual residence units on one layer,controlled by the site-catchments boundaries on another;

focal operationscompute a new value for every location as a function ofthe existing values, distances, and/or directions of neighbouring locationson a specified layer. Neighbourhoods may be defined in terms of physicalseparation, travel cost, intervisibility, or even by means of spreadingand radiating non-Euclidean functions, which extend the concept of

neighbourhood to include neighbourhoods defined by time and other fac-tors (including those operating within other layers). For example, we candefine a cluster of points with regard to a ring-shaped neighbourhood,with a diameter larger than 1 km, but smaller than 5 km.

incremental operations compute a new value for every location as a func-tion of its linea, area, or surface form on a specified layer. These opera-tions may indicate each locations length or shape as part of a lineal net-work; its surface area, frontage or shape as part of an areal pattern; or itsslope, aspect, drainage direction(s) or volume as part of a surface form.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

24/34


24

Another way to calculate multidimensional spatial correlation is byusing image processing techniques that compare the location of pixels indifferent pictures. Here a probability map is used as a bit-map picture. Stand-ard operations with pixels may be also applied to point-locations, in order toevaluate multidimensional dependence structure. For instance, by calculat-ing the gradient of a probability map you obtain a map that stands out areas(not necessary continuous fields) where probability values are statisticallyhigher than neighbouring locations. Image processing software also in-cluded in some GIS packages allows segmentation techniques, geometrictransformations, topological operators, shape representation and descrip-tion. These techniques can be used in the same way that in the MapAlgebraapproach to compute correlations among georeferenced probability maps.

6. CONCLUSIONS: SPATIALANALYSIS, SOCIALTHEORYANDGEOGRAPHICALTECHNIQUES

In this paper we have proposed some techniques which can be usefulto discover the existence of spatially related/unrelated social actions throughtime as well as to measure the existence/absence of some spatial correlationbetween them. How important is this correlation? It depends on the socialtheory which archaeologists try to develop and to test. We consider thatscience is a way of reasoning and not a database of true knowledge, con-sequently, we have to design tools that help us to discover relationships.

In this essay we have stressed the relevance of these spatial relation-ships. We consider that spatial coincidences among social actions are funda-mental to understand social dynamics, although social dynamics cannot bereduced only to a comparison of locations. The real problem is that socialdynamics is produced through time (both at short and long term) and space,and then these dynamics are far beyond the capabilities of observation of asingle individual. For this reason, in order to infer social dynamics we usearchaeological data (a long term record of social actions) which allow us toexplain why and how we are acting in the present. Space and Time are thefundamental dimensions of change and dynamics. They have to be described,

measured and understood. In this paper we have discussed some analyticalapproaches to the study of social spaces, and we have presented our owntheoretical-methodological proposal (in essence an enlarged materialist ap-proach) to discover the spatial dimension of social dynamics. We think thatGIS is an ideal tool to undertake the study of social spaces if we use it be-yond the simple representation and description of spatially referenced data.Spatial analysis involves operations whose results depend on data locationsand thus cannot be reduced to the production of maps from a simple ma-nipulation of the attribute database.

Of course, both theory and techniques proposed here are already un-

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

25/34


25

der construction, but we hope that this contribution adds some new keys tocontinue working on the development of new methods to undertake thestudy of social space.

JUANANTONBARCELMARIAPALLARS

Universitat Autnoma de BarcelonaDivisi de Prehistria

Facultat de Lletres

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADLERM.A. 1996, Land tenure, archaeology and the ancestral Pueblo social landscape,Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 15 (4).

AGORSAH E.K. 1988, Evaluating spatial behaviour of prehistoric societies, Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology, 7 (3), 231-247.

ALLEN K.M.S., GREEN S.W., ZUBROW E.B.W. (eds.) 1990, Interpreting Space: GIS andArchaeology, London, Taylor & Francis.

ANSELINL., GETISA. 1992, Spatial statistical analysis and Geographic Information Sys-tems, Annals of Regional Science, 26, 19-33.

BAENA J., BLASCO C., RECUERO V. 1995, The spatial analysis of Bell Beaker sites in theMadrid region of Spain, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC (eds.), Archaeology and Geo-graphical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis, 101-116.

BAENA J., BLASCOC., QUESADAF. (eds.) 1997,Los S.I.G. y el anlisis espacial en Arqueologa.Cantoblanco, Madrid, Ediciones de la Universidad Autnoma de Madrid.BARCEL J.A. 1995, Podemos determinar arqueolgicamente la interaccin social? in II

Jornadas de Arqueologa a la Carta, Carratraca, Diputacin de Mlaga, in press.BARCELJ.A., PALLARSM. 1996,From visual seduction to spatial analysis. A critique of GIS

in archaeology, in P. MOSCATI (ed.), III Convegno Internazionale di Archeologia e Infor-matica (Roma, 22-25 novembre 1995), Archeologia e Calcolatori, 7, 327-335.

BELLO J.M., CRIADOF., VAZQUEZVARELAJ.M. 1987,La Cultura megaltica de la Provin-cia de La Corua y sus relaciones con el marco natural: implicaciones socio-econmicas, La Corua, Diputacin Provincial.

BENDER B. 1992, Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge,Man, 27, 735-755.

BENDER B. (ed.) 1993, Landscape: Politics and Perspective, London, Berg.BISKOWSKIM. 1994, GIS & the study of grinding tools in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico,

in I. JOHNSON(ed.),Methods in the Mountains, Proceedings UISPP Commision IVMeeting (Victoria, Australia, August 1993), Sydney University ArchaeologicalMethod Series, n. 2., Sydney, 115-134.

BISWELLS.L, CROPPERJ.E., GAFFNEYV., LEACHP. 1995, Gis and excavation: A cautionarytale from Shepton Mallet, Somerset, England, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC (eds.), Ar-chaeology and Geographical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis,269-286.

BLASCOC., RECUEROV., DVILAA.F., BAENA J. 1995, Sistemas de informacin geogrficaen la gestin del patrimonio: definicin de las zonas de proteccin arqueolgica,in Aplicaciones informticas en Arqueologa: Teoras y sistemas, II Coloquio In-ternacional de Arqueologa e Informtica (Bilbao, 1993), Bilbao, 155-172.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

26/34


26

CARMICHA EL D.L. 1990, GIS. Predictive modelling of prehistoric site distributions inCentral Montana, in K.M.S. ALLEN, S.W. GREEN, E.B.W. ZUBROW (eds.) Interpret-

ing Space: GIS and Archaeology, London, Taylor & Francis, 216-225.CASTROP.V. et al.1996, Teora de las prcticas sociales, Complutum Extra, 6 (2), 35-48.CLAVAL P. 1977, Le marxisme et lespace, Lespace gographique, 3, 145-164.COSGROVED. 1984, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, London, Croom Helm.COUCLELIS H. 1991, Requirements for planning-related GIS in spatial perspective, Pa-

pers in Regional Science, 70 (1), 9-19.CRESSIEN. 1991, Statistics for Spatial Data, New York, John Wiley.DELLABONAL. 1993, A preliminary predictive model of prehistoric activity location for

the western Lake Nipigon watershed, Archaeological Computing Newsletter,37, 11-19.

DUNCAN J., DUNCANN. 1988, (Re)reading the landscape, Society and Space, 6, 117-126.EGENHOFER M.J., FRANZOSA R. 1991, Point-set topological spatial relations , Interna-

tional Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5 (2), 161-174.FOTHERINGHAMA.S., ROGERSONP.A. 1993, GIS and spatial analytical problems, Interna-

tional Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 7 (1), 3-19.FOUCAULTM. 1975, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, New

York, Vintage Books.FOUCAULTM. 1977, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, Vintage

Books.GAFFNEYV., STANCICZ. 1991, Gis Approaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study of the

Island of Hvar, Ljubljana, Znanstveni Institut Filozofske Fakultete.GAFFNEYV., STANCICZ., WATSONH. 1995,The impact of GIS in Archaeology: A personal

perspective, in G. Lock, Z. STANCIC (eds.), Archaeology and Geographical Infor-mation Systems, London, Taylor & Francis, 211-230.

GAFFNEY V., VAN LEUSEN M. 1995, Postscript-GIS, environmental determinism and ar-chaeology: A parallel text, in G. LOCK, D. STANCIC (eds.), Archaeology and Geo-graphical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis, 367-382.

GARCAL., RODRGUEZJ. 1996,Predicting the ritual? A suggested solution in archaeologi-cal forecasting through qualitative response models, in H. KAMERMANS, K. FENNEMA(eds.), Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in

Archaeology 1995, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, n. 28, Leiden, 203-216.GATRELL A.C. 1983, Distance and Space: A Geographical Perspective, Oxford, Oxford

University Press.GATRELL A.C. 1991, Concepts of space and geographical data, in D.J. MAGUIRE , M.F.

GOODCHILD, D.W RHIND(eds.), Geographical Information Systems: Principles andApplications, London, Longman, vol. 1, 119-34.

GILI S. 1995, Territorialidades de la Prehistoria Reciente Mallorquina, Tesi doctoral,Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona.GILLINGSM. 1996,Not drowning but waving? Re-humanising GIS, the Tisza flood plain

revisited, in Proceedings of XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Proto-historic Sciences(Forl, Italia, 8-14 September 1996), Forl, A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni,69-84.

GOSDENC. 1994, Social Being and Time, Cambridge, Blackwell.GOTTDIENER M. 1991, Space, social theory, and the urban metaphor, Current Perspec-

tives in Social Theory, vol. 11, 295-311.GOTTDIENERM. 1994, Social Production of Urban Space, Texas.GREGORY D., URRY J. (eds.) 1985, Social Relations and Spatial Structures, London,

Mcmillan.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

27/34


27

GREIDERT., GARKOVITCHL. 1994,Landscapes: The social construction of nature and theenvironment, Rural Sociology, 59 (1), 1-24.

HARRIS T., LOCKG. 1995, Toward an evaluation of GIS in European archaeology: Thepast, present and future of theory and applications, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC(eds.),Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis,349-366.

HASENSTABR.J., RESNICKB. 1990, GIS in historical predictive modelling: The Fort DrumProject, in K.M.S. ALLEN, S.W. GREEN, E.B.W. ZUBROW (eds.), Interpreting Space:GIS and Archaeology, London, Taylor & Francis, 284-306.

HERNANDEZZ.D. 1994, Qualitative Representation of Spatial Knowledge, Lecture Notesin Artificial Intelligence, n. 804, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

HODDERI. 1994,Architecture and meaning: The example of Neolithic houses and tombs,in M.P. PEARSON, C. RICHARDS(eds.),Architecture and Order, New York, Routledge,73-86.

J. HUGGET, N. RYAN(eds.) 1995, Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods 1994,BAR International Series, n. 600, Oxford.

HUSAINT. 1977, Topology and Maps, New York, Plenum Press.INGOLDT. 1993, The temporality of the landscape, World Archaeology, 25 (2), 152-173.JOHNSONI. (ed.) 1994,Methods in the Mountains,Proceedings UISPP Commision IV Meet-

ing(Victoria, Australia, August 1993), Sydney University Archaeological MethodSeries, n. 2, Sydney.

KAMERMANSH., FENNEMAK. (eds.) 1996,Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications andQuantitative Methods in Archaeology 1995, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, n.28, Leiden.

KIRBYK.C., PAZNERM. 1990, Graphic Map Algebra, Proceedings of the 4thInternationalSymposium on Spatial Data Handling (Zurich, July, 23-27).

KOHLERT.A., PARKER S.C. 1986, Predictive models for archaeological resource location,in M.B. SCHIFFER(ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, New York,Academic Press, vol. 9, 397-452.

KVAMMEK.L. 1989, Geographic Information Systems in regional research and data manage-ment, in M.B. SCHIFFER(ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Tucson, Universityof Arizona Press, vol. 1, 139-203.

KVAMMEK.L. 1990, GIS algorithms and their effects on regional archaeological analysis, inin K.M.S. ALLEN, S.W. GREEN, E.B.W. ZUBROW (eds.), Interpreting Space: GIS and

Archaeology, London, Taylor & Francis, 112-126.KVAMMEK.L. 1990, The fundamental principles and practice of predictive modelling, in

A. VOORRIPS (ed.), Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology, Bonn,Holos-Verlag, vol. 3.

KVAMMEK.L. 1992, Terrain form analysis of archaeological location through GeographicInformation Systems, in G. LOCK, J. MOFFETT (eds.), Computer Applications andQuantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991, BAR International Series, n. 577,Oxford, Tempus Reparatum, 127-136.

KVAMMEK.L. 1992,A predictive site location model on the high plains: An example withan independent test , Plains Anthropologist, 56 (2), 19-40.

LEFEBVREH. 1974, La production de lEspace, Paris.LOCKG., HARRIST. 1990, Integrating spatial information in computerised SMRs, in K.

LOCKYEAR, S. RAHTZ (eds.), Computer Applications and Quantitative methods inArchaeology 1990, Oxford, Tempus Reparatum, 165-174.

LOCKG., HARRIST. 1992, Visualizing spatial data: The importance of Geographic Infor-mation Systems, in R. REILLY, S. RAHTZ, (eds.),Archaeology and the Information

Age: A Global Perspective, London, Routldge, 81-96.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

28/34


28

LOCKG., MOFFETT J. 1992 (eds.), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods inArchaeology 1991 , BAR International Series, n. 577, Oxford.

LOCK G., STANC

IC

Z. (eds.) 1995, Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems,London, Taylor & Francis.LOEB A.L. 1976, Spatial Structures, London, Addison-Wesley.LOPEZ P. et al. (eds.) 1991, El cambio cultural del IV al II milenio a.C. en la comarca

Noroeste de Murcia, Madrid, CSIC.LUXA., RITJ.F. 1988,Modles de raisonnement pour un module temporal , in D. PASTRE

(ed.),Intelligence Artificielle, Actes des Journes Nationales (PRC-GRECO), Tou-louse, Teknea.

MASSEYD. 1992,Politics and space/time, New Left Review, 196, 65-84.MATHRONG. 1965, The Theory of Regionalized Variables and its Applications, Les Cahiers

du centre de morphologie mathmatique de Fontainebleau, Paris, Ecole NationaleSuprieure des Mines de Paris.

MEFFERTM. 1995, Spatial relations in Roman Iron Age settlements in the Assendelver Pol-ders, The Netherlands, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC(eds.),Archaeology and Geographi-cal Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis, 287-300.

MILLSB. 1994, MapAlgebra: An emerging standard for analysis in GIS, GISEurope, 3(9), 18-20.

PALLARSM. 1995, Cuestiones terico-metodolgicas sobre el estudio de la organizacin espacialde los asentamientos de comunidades cazadoras-recolectoras. Sota Palou, un caso

practico, in Aplicaciones informticas en Arqueologa: Teoras y sistemas, II Colo-quio Internacional de Arqueologa e Informtica (Bilbao, 1993), Bilbao, 387-408.

PAR CERO -OUBIA C. (in press), Deconstructing the land: The archaeology of sacredgeographies, in Computer Applications in Archaeology 1997.

PEARSON M.P., RICHARDS C. 1994, Architecture and order: Spatial representation andarchaeology, in M.P. PEARSON, C. RICHARDS (eds.), Architecture and Order. Ap-proaches to Social Space, London, Routledge.

PEARSONM.P., RICHARDSC. 1994, Ordering the world: Perceptions of architecture, spaceand time, in M.P. PEARSON, C. RICHARDS(eds.),Architecture and Order. Approachesto Social Space, London, Routledge.

PEUQUETD.J. 1988,Representations of geographic space: Toward a conceptual synthesis,Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, 375-394.

RAPOPORTA. 1982, The Meaning of the Built Environment,Beverly Hills, SAGE.RAPOPORTA. 1990, Systems of activities and systems of settings, in S. Kent (ed.),Domestic

Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 9-20.RELPHE. 1976, Place and Placelessness, London, Pion.RUGGLESC.L.N., MEDYCKYJ-SCOTTD.J., GRUFFYDDA. 1993,Multiple viewshed analysis using

GIS and its archaeological application: A case study in northern Mull, in J. ANDRESEN

,T. MADSEN, I. SCOLLAR (eds.), Computing the Past: Computer and QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology 1992, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 125-131.

SNCHEZ-PALENCIA J., FERNNDEZ-POSSEM., OREJASA. 1996 (in press), Le projet de la zonearchologique de Las Medulas, lemploi du SIG, in The Use of GIS in the Study ofAncient Landscapes and Features Related to Ancient Land Use, COST, Workshop(Ljubljana, 27 abril 1996).

SAYER A. 1985, The difference that space makes, in D. GREGORY, J. URRY (eds.), SocialRelations and Spatial Structures, London, Mcmillan, 49-66.

SCHATZKI T.R. 1991, Spatial ontology and explanation, Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 81, 650-670.

SIMONSEN K. 1996, What kind of space in what kind of social theory? , Progress inHuman Geography, 20 (4), 494-512.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

29/34


29

SIMSB.T. 1976,Fundamentals of Topology, New York, McMillan.SOJAE. 1980, The socio-spatial dialectic, Annals of the Association of American Geog-

raphers, 70, 207-225.SOJA E. 1985, The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorisation, inD. GREGORY, J. URRY (eds.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures, London,McMillan, 90-127.

SOJA E. 1989, Postmodern Geographies, London, Verso.SOJAE. 1996, Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real -and- Imagined Places,

Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers.SWYNGEDOUWE. 1992, Review: Henri Lefebvres The Production of Space, Economic

Geography, 68 (3), 317-319.THEUNISSEN R. 1996, The cave as a landscape: A GIS assisted spatial analysis of stone

artefacts at Petzkes cave, Northern NSW, Australia, in Proceedings of XIII Inter-national Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (Forl, Italia, 8-14

September 1996), Forl, A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, 232.THOMAS J. 1991, Rethinking the Neolithic, London, Cambridge University Press.THOMASJ. 1996, The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape, in B. BENDER

(ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford, Berg, 19-48.TILLEYC. 1994,Places, Paths and Monuments. A Phenomenology of Landscape, Oxford, Berg.TOBLERW. 1979, Cellular geography, in S. GALE, G. OLSSON (eds.),Philosophy in Geog-

raphy, Dordrecht, Reidel, 379-386.TOMLIN C.D. 1991, Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modelling,

Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.TOMLIN C.D. 1994, Map Algebra: One perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning,

30, 3-12.TRICOTC. 1987, Statistique Spatiale, Brouillons Dupont n. 15, Avignon, Groupe Dupont.

TRICOTC., RAFFENSTINC. 1979, Concentration et connexit ou pour un approche du conceptde territorialit, Actes du colloque Gopoint76, Thorie et gographie (Genve,Groupe Dupont), Avignon, Universits de Genve et de Lausanne, 49-62.

VALDS L., ARENAL I., PUJANA I. (eds.) 1995, Aplicaciones informticas en arqueologa.Teoras y Sistemas, Bilbao, Denboraren Argia, vol. 2.

VANDERLEEUWS. (ed.) 1995,Lhomme et la dgradation de lenvironment, XV RencontresInternationales dArchologie et dHistoire dAntibes, Sophia-Antipolis, Ed. APDA.

VERHAEGEN P., MCGLADE J., GILI S., RISCH R. 1995, Some criteria for modelling socio-economic activities in the Bronze-Age of South East Spain, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC

(eds.), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems, London, Taylor &Francis, 187-209.

VOIRONCANICIOC. 1993,Espace, structures et dynamiques regionales. LArc mediterranen,

Revue dAnalyse Spatiale Quantitative et Applique, 33, 1-296.VOORRIPSA. 1996,Archaeological theory and GIS, any relations?, inProceedings of XIIIInternational Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (Forl, Italia, 8-14 September 1996), Forl, A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, 209-214.

WALLC.T.C. 1972,A Geometric Introduction to Topology, Reading (MA), Addison-Wesley.WANDSNIDERL. 1996,Describing and comparing archaeological spatial structures, Journal

of Archaeological Method and Theory, 3 (4), 319-384.WARRENR.E. 1990,Predictive modelling of archaeological site location, in K.M.S. ALLEN,

S.W. GREEN, E.B.W. ZUBROW(eds.),Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, Lon-don, Taylor & Francis, 201-215.

WASSERMAN K., LEIBOWITZ M. 1983, Representing complex physical objects, Cognitionand Brain Theory, 6, 333-352.

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

30/34


30

WERLENB. 1993, Society, Action and Space. An Alternative Human Geography, London,Routledge.

WHEATLEY D. 1993, Going over old ground: GIS, archaeological theory and the act ofperception, in J. ANDRESEN, T. MADSEN, I. SCOLLAR (eds.), Computing the Past:Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1992, Aarhus, Aarhus Uni-versity Press, 133-138.

WHEATLEY D. 1995, Cumulative views analysis. A GIS-based method for investigatingintervisibility and its archaeological application, in G. LOCK, Z. STANCIC (eds.),

Archeological and Geographical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Fran-cis, 171-186.

WHEATLEYD. 1996,Between the lines: The role of GIS-based predictive modelling in theinterpretation of extensive survey data, in H. KAMERMANS, K. FENNEMAK. (eds.),

Interfacing the Past. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archae-ology 1995, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, n. 28, Leiden, 275-292.

WIEMERR. 1995, How to look good and influence people: Thoughts on the design andinterpretation of an archaeological GIS, in G. LOCK, Z. STANC

IC

(eds.),Archaeologyand Geographical Information Systems, London, Taylor & Francis, 301-313.WILCOCKJ., LOCKYEARK. (eds.) 1995, Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in

Archaeology 1993, BAR International Series, n. 598, Oxford, Tempus Reparatum.ZEDEO M.A. 1997, Landscapes, land use and the history of territory formation: An

example from Puebloan Southwest, Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory, 4 (1), 67-102

ZUBROW E.B.W. 1990, The fantasies of GIS software, in K.M.S. ALLEN, S.W. GREEN, E.B.W.ZUBROW (eds.),Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, London, Taylor & Francis,184-193.

ZUBROW E.B.W. 1994, Knowledge representation and archaeology: A cognitive exampleusing GIS, in C. RENFREW, E.B.W. ZUBROW(eds.), The Ancient Mind. Elements of

Cognitive Archaeology, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.

RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE GIS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Title of the project: Informatizacin del registro arqueolgico referido al territorio.Promoting institution: Direccin General de Bienes Culturales, Consejera de Culturay Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andaluca.Year of beginning: 1994.Foreseen term: 1997.

Geographic area: Andalusian region, but we like to develop a general record ofexcavation independent of geographic area.Excavation area: Andalusian region.Short description of the project: The design and development of an ArchaeologicInformation System (SIA) focused on the following purposes:1) to establish the necessary methodological concepts that permit to obtain an ex-haustive information in the excavations;2) to design a system of archaeological record that standardizes the informationderived from the Andalusian excavations, obtaining a complete homologation inthe archaeological information;

8/11/2019 09 05 Barcelo

31/34


31

3) to incorporate into the system a procedure that permits to locate geographically(at level

09 05 Barcelo

Documents

Transcript of 09 05 Barcelo