Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:48:52.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embracing uncertainty and challenging dualism in the GIS-based study of a palaeo-flood plain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Mark Gillings
Mark Gillings*
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The following paper aims to take a critical look at the role that can be played within the broad context of landscape based archaeological research by Geographical Information Systems (GIS). It will be argued that the rapid acceptance of GIS by archaeologists has not been without its problems, with a number of archaeologists wondering whether, despite the hype, any new approaches have been introduced at all. This, it will be argued, is a direct result of GIS-based applications tending to work within a largely inherited theoretical framework and, more importantly, lacking at present a critical theory of practice.

The aim of the paper is move beyond critique to suggest how GIS can provide not only an efficient means of generating simple distribution maps, but a flexible environment within which to bridge developments in theory and practice. Using an on-going case-study centred upon flood events in the palaeo-flood plain of the river Tisza, the implications of using GIS to welcome uncertainty into the analytical environment are explored and a number of approaches advocated. The significance these developments have in expanding our interpretive frameworks is explored through the fore-grounding and challenging of a number of dualistic modes of thought in that area actively encouraged and reinforced by the use of traditional GIS.

Cet article vise à examiner le rôle que pourraient jouer les systèmes d'information géographiques (SIG) dans le cadre assez large des recherches archéologiques basées sur le paysage. Dans cet article, on montre comment le fait que les archéologues aient rapidement accepté les SIG a fait naître certains problèmes, si bien que, malgré le vif enthousiasme suscité par les SIG, un grand nombre d'archéologues se demandent si ces systèmes ont vraiment permis de créer de nouvelles approches. On essaie aussi de démontrer que ceci est le résultat direct des applications basées sur les SIG. En effet, celles-ci tendent à rester dans un cadre théorique très traditionnel, et, de surcroît, ne reposent à l'heure actuelle sur aucune théorie pratique valable.

Cet article va au-delà de la critique et suggère comment les SIG peuvent non seulement constituer un moyen efficace de générer des cartes de distribution, mais aussi fournir un environnement souple au sein duquel on peut rapprocher théorie et pratique. On examine la façon dont on utilise les SIG pour traiter les incertitudes dans des environnements analytiques et on préconise de nombreuses approches, en se basant sur une étude de cas en cours, portant sur les inondations dans les plaines inondables de la rivière Tisza, durant la période postglaciale. On examine aussi l'importance que peuvent avoir les SIG dans l'expansion de notre cadre d'interprétation, en étudiant soigneusement et remettant en question bon nombre de modes de pensée dualistes, méthode que l'on a activement encouragée dans ce domaine ainsi que renforcée par l'utilization des SIG traditionels.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag versucht eine kritische Betrachtung der Rolle, die geographische Informationssysteme (GIS) innerhalb des allgemeinen Zusammenhangs archäologischer Landschaftssforschung spielen kann. Es wird argumentiert, daß die rasche Akzeptierung von GIS bei Archäolog(inn)en nicht problemlos vonstatten gegangen ist: eine Reihe von Archäolog(inn)en wundert sich, ob – trotz aller Überschwänglichkeit – überhaupt irgendwelche neuen Forschungsansätze eingeführt worden sind. Dies, so meine Argumentation, ist eine direkte Folge von GIS-Anwendungen, die innerhalb eines größtenteils ererbten theoretischen Rahmens angewandt wurden und denen vor allem eine kritische Theorie der Praxis fehlte.

Das Ziel dieses Beitrages ist es, über Kritik hinausgehend, einen Vorschlag zu machen, wie GIS nicht nur ein effizientes Mittel zur Erzeugung einfacher Verbreitungskarten darstellen kann, sondern auch eine flexibles Milieu, innerhalb dessen Entwicklungen in Theorie und Praxis miteinander verbunden werden können. Unter Heranziehung einer laufenden Fallstudie über Überschwemmungen in der Paläoschwemmebene des Flusses Tisza werden die Implikationen des Verwendens von GIS in Hinsicht auf das Zulassen von Unsicherheit innerhalb des analytischen Milieus untersucht. Eine Reihe von Vorgehensweisen wird empfohlen. Die Wichtigkeit, die diese Entwicklungen für ein Ausdehnen unseres Interpretationsrahmens haben, wird durch das bewußte Infragestellen einer Reihe von dualistischen Denkweisen untersucht, die durch die Verwendung traditioneller GIS aktiv unterstützt und bestärkt werden.

Keywords

affordancebinary oppositionculture: nature dualityfuzzinessGISuncertainty
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , 1998 , pp. 117 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldenderfer, M. and Maschner, H.D.G. (eds), 1996. Anthropology, Space and Geo-graphical Information Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C. and Patton, P.C. (eds), 1988. Flood Geomorphology. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Barrett, J., 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buttimer, A., 1985. Nature, water symbols, and the human quest for wholeness. In Seamon, D. and Mugerauer, R. (eds), Dwelling, Place and Environment: Towards a Phenomenology of Person and World, 259–280. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Chapman, D., 1994. Natural Hazards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, J., 1994 Social power in the early farming communities of eastern Hungary — perspectives from the Upper Tisza region. A Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36:79–99.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. and Laszlovszky, J., 1992. The Upper Tisza Project 1991: report on the first season. Archaeological Reports 1991 (Durham and Newcastle): 10–13.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. and Laszlovszky, J., 1993. The Upper Tisza Project: the September 1992 season. Archaeological Reports 1992 (Durham and Newcastle): 13–19.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. and Laszlovszky, J., 1995. A Neolithic flood in eastern Hungary. Archaeo-logical Reports 1994 (Durham and Newcastle): 8–18.Google Scholar
Chapman, J., Pollard, J., Passmore, D.G. and Davis, B.A.S., 1997. Sites and palaeo-channels in the Polgár lowlands, North-East Hungary the Upper Tisza Project 1996 field season. Archaeological Reports 1996 (Durham and Newcastle): 12–21.Google Scholar
Eastman, R.J., 1997. Idrisi for Windows: User's Guide Version 2.0. Worcester: Clarke University.Google Scholar
Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Woodward, A. and Yorston, R., forthcoming. Going over old ground: a re-analysis of ritual monuments in the Stonehenge area. In Wheat-ley, D. and Wise, A. (eds), Spatial Technologies and Archaeological Reasoning.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, A., 1992. Archaeobotanical remains. In Upper Tisza Project Consortium 1992, 45–48.Google Scholar
Feldman, D.A., 1975. The history of the relationship between environment and culture in ethnological thought: an overview. Journal of the History of Behavioural Sciences 2: 67–81.Google Scholar
Fisher, P.F., 1991. First experiments in viewshed uncertainty the accuracy of the viewable area. In Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Fisher, P.F., 1992. First experiments in viewshed uncertainty simulating the fuzzy viewshed. In Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58: 345–352.Google Scholar
Fisher, P.E., 1994. Probable and fuzzy models of the viewshed operation. In Worboys, M.F. (ed.), Innovations in GIS: selected papers from the First National Conference on GIS Research UK: 161–175. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gaffney, V. and Van Leusen, P.M., 1995. Postscript — GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology. In Lock, G. and Stančić, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: 367–382. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., 1995. Flood dynamics and settlement in the Tisza valley of north-east Hungary: GIS and the Upper Tisza Project. In Lock, G. and Stančić, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: 67–84. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., 1997a. Spatial organization in the Tisza flood-plain: Landscape dynamics and GIS. In Chapman, J.C.C. and Dolukhanov, P. (eds), Landscapes in Flux – Proceedings of the second CITEE conference. Colloquenda Pontica. London: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., 1997b. Not drowning but waving? The Tisza flood plain revisited. In North, M. and Johnson, I. (eds), Archaeological Applications of GIS: Proceedings of Colloquium II, UISPP XIIIth Congress. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 5 [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Gillings, M., forthcoming. Sounds stinky (but feels quite nice): towards a more sen-suous GIS. In Wheatley, D. and Wise, W. (eds), Spatial Technologies and Archaeo-logical Reasoning.Google Scholar
Gillings, M. and Goodrick, G.T., 1996. Sensuous and Reflexive GIS: exploring visua-lization and VRML. In Internet Archaeology 1: (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/).Google Scholar
Gosden, C. and Lock, G., forthcoming. Emerging history structure, landscape and GIS on the Ridgeway. In Wheatley, D. and Wise, A. (eds), Spatial Technologies and Archaeological Reasoning.Google Scholar
Gregory, D., 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horváth, F., 1987. Hódmezővásárhely-Gorsza. In Raczky, P. (ed.), The Late Neolithic in the Tisza Region, 31–46. Budapest-Szolnok: Szolnok County Museum.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1992. Culture and the perception of the environment. In Croll, E. and Parkin, D. (eds), Bush Base: Forest Farm, 39–56. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25:152–174.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1996. Human worlds are culturally constructed. In Ingold, T. (ed.), Key Debates in Anthropology, 112–118. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jain, R., 1980. Fuzzyism and real world problems. In Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K. (eds), Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications to Policy Analysis and Information Systems, 129–132. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Kalicz, N. and Raczky, P., 1987. The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A survey of recent archaeological research. In Raczky, P. (ed.), The Late Neolithic in the Tisza Region, 11–29. Budapest-Szolnok: Szolnok County Museum.Google Scholar
Knox, J.C., 1988. Climatic influence on Upper Mississippi valley floods. In Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C. and Patton, P.C. (eds), Flood Geomorphology, 279–300. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kochel, R.C. and Baker, V.R., 1988. Palaeoflood analysis using slackwater deposits. In Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C. and Patton, P.C. (eds), Flood Geomorphology: 357–376. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Korek, J., 1987. Szegvár-Tűzköves. In Raczky, P. (ed.), The Late Neolithic in the Tisza Region, 47–60. Budapest-Szolnok: Szolnok County Museum.Google Scholar
Llobera, M., 1996. Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity 70: 612–622.Google Scholar
Lock, G. and Stančić, Z. (eds), 1995. Archaeology and Geographical information Systems. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Loczy, D., 1990. Cultural landscapes in Hungary - two case studies. In Birks, H.J. et al. (eds), The Cultural Landscape: Past, Present and Future, 165–176. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGlade, J., forthcoming. GIS and Integrated Archaeological Knowledge Systems. In North, M. and Johnson, I. (eds), Archaeological Applications of GIS: Proceedings of Colloquium II, UISPP XIIIth Congress. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 5 [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Openshaw, S. and Openshaw, C., 1997. Artificial Intelligence in Geography. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Patton, P.C., 1988. Drainage basin morphology and floods. In Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C. and Patton, P.C. (eds), Flood Geomorphology, 51–64. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. and Gillings, M., forthcoming. Romancing the Stones: Notes towards an elemental and virtual Avebury. Submitted to the journal Antiquity, July 1997.Google Scholar
Rodaway, P., 1994. Sensuous Geographies: Body, sense and place. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rónal, A., 1987. Az Alföld földtani atlasza: Hajduncimis. Budapest: Magyar Allami Földtani Intezet.Google Scholar
Shiel, R.S., Stockdale, E. and Stephenson, O., 1992. Introduction to the Landscape. In the Upper Tisza Consortium, Upper Tisza Project Report to University Research Committee 1991–92, 26–28. Unpublished report, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Thrift, N., 1996. Spatial Formations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Upper Tisza Consortium, 1992. Upper Tisza Project Report to University Research Committee 1991–92. Unpublished University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
UPPER TISZA CONSORTIUM, forthcoming. Islands in the Plain - Tells and GIS in North East Hungary.Google Scholar
White, G.F., 1974. Natural hazards research: concepts, methods, and policy implications. In White, G.F. (ed.), Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ZADEH, 1980, Foreword. In Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K. (eds), Fuzzy Sets: Theoryand Applications to Policy Analysis and Information Systems. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar