General |
Site Prediction |
Interview |
Relevant Links
GIS Archaeology survey Sixty three per cent of the participants were involved in choosing their system, which makes sense in a discipline like archaeology, where projects usually involve an intimate number of decision-makers, and a substantial number of projects are one-person operations. Figure 1 shows the type of software used by archaeologists and the platforms they run on. ESRI’s Arcview and ArcInfo were the leaders in software used by archaeologists. PCs used more than any platforms, indicating, again, the small nature of GIS operations in archaeology.  Answers to the first question in this category emphasized the fact that site-based analyses using GIS are in their infancy. Region-based analyses have dominated the use of GIS. Determining the type of applications used was rather important because it showed whether the participants were making the most of the tool. While GIS is undoubtedly a powerful tool and has functions that cater to very complex modelling needs, it is still a tool that is driven by market demands , often of a non-archaeological nature. GIS is fundamentally a set of incomplete modules that can only be expanded upon and effectively utilised by adding one’s own algorithms through programming languages. Without this functionality, the user is left with the default capabilities of the software, which leaves the software makers in control of the shape of future research. Only 22 of the 140 participants used their own algorithms, and, of these 22, only 14 listed them as one of their most successful applications. The scope of the software analyses used was wide, and showed that the participants made use of most of the features available in their GIS packages. Problematic operations were by far data collection, data conversion, and data compatibility. Data sources showed a high frequency of manual digitizing and database sources. This could be a result of directly imputing data in a computer database in the field, or exporting an existing database into a GIS readable format. Internet downloads were among the least frequent source of data.  Four per cent of the participants thought that the simplicity of GIS software limited their ability to apply their models. Seven per cent stated that GIS complexity reduced their ability to apply their models. Fifty per cent believed that GIS opened their mind to more expressive models, while 15% expressed that GIS did not change the way their models were designed. Twenty three per cent decided that none of the above answers applied to them and finally 1% did not answer the question. The results reinforced the idea that GIS is more than a tool. It is certainly not a simple tool because it is not limiting anyone’s imagination in terms of analysis. If it is restrictive in a way, it is the software’s complexity that keeps people from implementing what they have in mind. Nonetheless, it is clear that GIS has significantly impacted users spatial thinking as half of the participants thought GIS opened their mind to more ideas. |