Conclusion: The future development of archaeological spatial analysis

Abstract

In the past it was said that the quality of archaeological spatial data had moved beyond the methods available to analyze it (Ammermen 1992). This is no longer true given the recent rapid development of technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that accurately handle large quantities and types of data. What is lacking is a coherent body of theory to guide interpretation in light of the analyses possible due to advancing technologies. In interpretation, spatial designations are of no small consequence, and an agreed upon, pan-archaeological definition and conceptual framework for space is unlikely. As Agnew (1993:251) argued over a decade ago, "representations of geographical space have not elicited much attention" from non-geographers. However, a consistent dialogue about the ontology and epistemology of space in archaeology is both possible and necessary, and this volume represents a decided move in that direction. Because space is one of the essential elements of any archaeological study, finding a common ground to address spatial phenomena is vital. There is no question that the authors in this volume deliver different approaches to spatial problems, but common threads can be spun from their work. At the beginning of this book, we outlined three general topics that we have used to discuss spatial issues in archaeology. Wheatley and Gillings (2002:233-236) divided spatial research into two main areas; intrasite studies and regional landscapes. We have added a third, spatial concepts, along with the caveat that the first two are not truly dichotomous, but rather a division for analytical purposes. All of the papers in this book discuss different concepts of space, methodologies applied in investigating