Spatial Analysis in the Archaeological research

Quantities methods and Intrasite spatial analysis are used to reexamine the excavations data in order to explore new issues and results.

In the Intrasite spatial analysis the main interest is to reevaluated the main architectural groups, the human activities and socioeconomic inner structure of the sites habitants. At the end of the process we can compare between the research results and the preliminary assumptions about the social position of the site habitants in order to evaluate their resembling amount.

Theoretical framework

Quantitative methods in archaeology are defined as any type of recording or analyzing cultural materials with the help of numbers (Vooris 1996). The detailed description of artifacts and typology rating that Petrie (1901) made in the first time, can be considered as preliminary steps toward quantitative analysis. Over fifty years, most of the analysis was restricted to visual inspection and comparison of frequency tablet.

This tendency changed when the New Archaeology paradigm has appeared. Binford (1962, 1965) was the first to prevent consistence methods base on laws and theories in order to classify the archaeological data in spatial context. He claimed, for example, that “facts” never speak for themselves and need to be interpreted according to scientific parameters.

At the 1980's this methodological approach had grown into processual archaeology ( Renfrew 1984 ). It had become clear that the since there is such a great variety of the archaeological data it will be difficult to be simply explained by general rules, and that the formation process has to be considered as a central issue in every archaeological interpretation. According to Schiffer (1976, 1987) there are two main factors that affect the site formation process : cultural factors ( C-transformation) and natural factors (N-transformation), that represents geographic and biochemical changes.

The middle range theory or the post-processual approach that followed later on, brought up again traditional human issues such as: cultural identity, nationality and ethnicity (Hodder 1991, Jonse 1997). Instead of using theoretical and methodological models for understanding “natural” orders, scholars express their interest based on their own perspectives. They were also more aware that definitions of classes, attributes selection and measurement resolution are critical preliminary decisions, which reflect the work targets and final results.

Ethnoarchaeology studies have become a useful tool in the later approach, but despite of their potential, they could not be regarded as “one to one” with the archaeological data.

Daviau (1993) for example, used an ethnographic model from Hasanabad in western Iran to explain domestic activities in houses from the Bronze Age in Palestine . One problematic issue in her model was, that not all activities that were identified in the ethnological model, could be traced in the archaeological record due to objective preservation causes. She concluded that certain activities that demand solid evidences like storing and food preparing, can be identified more easily in the archaeological record than others activities that probably took place without leaving reliable evidences.

Other spatial definition can be made between socioeconomic differences based on the obvious assumption that elite groups consumed luxury objects in higher frequency than others. Geva (1989) tested this argument in Hazor and found that the amount of special artifacts in larger buildings was higher compared to smaller buildings. This approach was criticized by Faust (1999: 250) that claimed that artifacts should not be considered as reliable sources for social recognition because their mobility nature.

 

Synthesis

Our synthesis appoints that all artifacts are required to be presented in the analyzing process according to their specific value. Architectural buildings or forms are more important for understanding the spatial behavior of the social group while small artifacts should be considered by their objective context and density. We can assume for example that the largest building was probably used for public activities or served elite group – although no supportive artifacts were found inside. We can also claim that luxury artifacts in common houses should not be regarded separately from another social group unless other evidences were found.

By estimating the loci clearness value, we can reduce the weight of loci or objects that were found in unclear context. More often the upper stratum determines the compound preservation condition of the stratum below. If particular area or building was left opened, their fills might stay “clean” and untouched. However, in most cases the valuable artifacts will be missing.

The third objective is to understand the data diffusion by groups of artifacts types. We believe that consistence human activity should leave clear evidence on the settlement map unless outer transformation appears . By calculating the statistic average of any artifacts group, we can trace areas that have high potential to be related to specific human behavior. For this reason single or randomize components should not be regarded as satisfactory attribute in this analysis.