While predictive models are great for informing survey decisions and streamlining cultural management processes they're aren't a panacea. They can in no way serve as substitute to boots on the ground, they can merely supplement and inform survey and project planning. There is no model, no matter how thorough, that can say that there are no archaeological materials in an area. These models represent probability and likelihood of the presence of archaeological remains.
I am currently at the Great Basin Archaeological Conference and one of the presentations I was able to see discussed a predictive model for an area of National Forest that I work in. The model had a greater than 90% ability to predict the known site locations (it was thoroughly cross validated and I have spent the summer collecting data in some of the unsurveyed areas...it will be neat to see if the model predicted a comparable amount of density in that region). That being said, it's those sites that appear in the unlikely areas that become of great interest (in their deviation from a pattern).
Yes, predictive models do not tell the whole story but they go a long way in helping, in my instance a National Forest, determine how best to allot limited resources (time, money, seasonal employees).
Below is my map deliverable showing the areas that are likely to contain sites in green. That means their combination of slope, aspect, elevation, and proximity to water are ideal.
 |
| Map deliverable displaying the results of a predictive model run using slope, aspect, elevation, and proximity to water. |
No comments:
Post a Comment