ABSTRACT
There is a beguiling aura surrounding predictive archaeological modeling that is compelling. This allure has been reinforced in recent years by the scientific and technological legitimation provided by geographic information systems (GIS). Using knowledge of the environmental variables that “first influenced the activities of original inhabitants,” GIS layers are produced that identify locations where combinations of environmental variables match the patterns observed at known prehistoric sites (Kuiper and Wescott 1999:1). Thus, high-potential areas of prehistoric sites can be identified using environmental data from known archaeological sites in a region that corresponds well with known sites (Kuiper and Wescott 1999:2). While most developers of such predictive models acknowledge limitations in their analysis, and of predictive archaeological modeling in general, there can be no doubt that in North America these models are seen to “provide planners with a guide showing areas that would likely require less time, effort, and money to develop from a cultural resource compliance standpoint” and to augment and prioritize areas for “evaluation, monitoring, or mitigation” (Kuiper and Wescott 1999:2; Wescott and Kuiper 2000). In other cultures, however, landscape analysis has taken an alternative route that reflects differing epistemological approaches to landscape archaeology. This chapter seeks to explore such differences in the approaches to landscape archaeology and predictive modeling. The aim is to identify strengths and weaknesses in archaeological predictive-modeling approaches and to suggest enhancements to modeling methods that incorporate cultural and humanistic archaeology as well as environmental factors in the modeling process.
