Abstract
Computational modeling in archaeology is approached from various perspectives (correlative, generalized behavior, and system-based) and can serve different goals (prediction, reconstruction, and exploration). Whatever the focus of any particular model, however, we have to deal with aspects of uncertainty, which are not easily tackled. The uncertainty relates to the very nature of archaeological datasets as well as to the model itself, and both types of uncertainty make it difficult to assess model performance and decide which (set of) models serve a given purpose best. In this chapter, we specifically discuss uncertainty and model selection in an exploratory context. For this purpose, we consider a case study on prehistoric hunter-gatherer landscape use in Flevoland (The Netherlands). We demonstrate strengths and weaknesses of the model for exploratory use and argue that, rather than data-driven statistical testing, robustness analysis is the main approach for dealing with the uncertainty. Although Bayesian statistical approaches could be useful to deal with model uncertainty, such analyses are frustrated by the notorious lack of unambiguous archaeological data. Robustness analysis and the development of theoretically underpinned selection tools, like “informativeness” (specificity) and “surprisingness,” can help to evaluate the models already at the front end of model building. In this way, we can identify families of models that seem to offer the best possibilities for hypothesis testing.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Weight values range from 0 (bad/low density/costly) to 1 (good/high density/beneficial). For more details on procedures, see Peeters (2007) (available from http://dare.uva.nl/document/42380).
References
Aporta, C. (2009). The trail as home: Inuit and their pan-Arctic network of routes. Human Ecology, 37, 131–146.
Arnot, C., & Fisher, P. (2007). Mapping the ecotone with fuzzy sets. In A. Morris & S. Kokhan (Eds.), Geographic uncertainty in environmental security (pp. 19–32). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bailey, G. (2007). Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26, 198–223.
Danielisová, A., Olševočová, K., Cimler, R., & Machálek, T. (2015). Understanding the Iron Age economy: Sustainability of agricultural practices under stable population growth. In G. Wurzer, K. Kowarik, & H. Reschreiter (Eds.), Agent-based modeling and simulation in archaeology (pp. 183–216). New York: Oxford University Press.
Descola, P. (1999). Des proies bienveillantes. Le traitement du gibier dans la chasse amazonienne. In F. Héritier (Ed.), De la violence (Vol. II, pp. 19–44). Paris: Odile Jacob.
Finke, P. A., Meylemans, E., & van de Wauw, J. (2008). Mapping the possible occurrence of archaeological sites by Bayesian inference. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35–10, 2786–2796.
Henrickson, L., & McKelvey, B. (2002). Foundations of “new” social science: Institutional legitimacy from philosophy, complexity science, postmodernism, and agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (Suppl.3), 7288–7295.
Holdaway, S., & Wandschnider, L. (2008). Time in archaeology: An introduction. In S. Holdaway & L. Wandschnider (Eds.), Time in archaeology: Time perspectivism revisited (pp. 1–12). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Janssen, M. A., & Hill, K. (2014). Benefits of grouping and cooperative hunting among Ache hunter-gatherers: Insights from an agent-based foraging model. Human Ecology, 42, 823–835.
Kamermans, H., van Leusen, M., & Verhagen, P. (Eds.). (2009). Archaeological prediction and risk management. Alternatives to current practice. Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University Press.
Kohler, T. A., & van der Leeuw, S. E. (2007). Introduction. Historical socionatural systems and models. In T. A. Kohler & S. E. van der Leeuw (Eds.), The model-based archaeology of socionatural systems (pp. 1–12). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for Advanced Research Press.
Lavrillier, A. (2011). The creation and persistence of cultural landscapes among the Siberian Evenkis: Two conceptions of ‘sacred’ space. In P. Jordan (Ed.), Landscape and culture in northern Eurasia (pp. 215–231). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Lovis, W. A., & Donahue, R. E. (2011). Space, information, and knowledge: Ethnocartography and North American boreal forest hunter-gatherers. In R. Whallon, W. A. Lovis, & R. K. Hitchcock (Eds.), Information and its role in hunter-gatherer bands (pp. 59–84). Los Angeles, CA: The Costen Institute of Archaeology Press of UCLA.
Mlekuž, D. (2014). Everything flows: Computational approaches to fluid landscapes. In G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, & D. Wheatley, D. (Eds.), Archaeology in the digital era, volume II: e-Papers from the 40th annual conference of computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March 2012 (pp. 839–845). Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/aup/en/record/500958.
Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human–animal sociality. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 25–43.
Peeters, H. (2005). The forager's pendulum: Mesolithic–Neolithic landscape dynamics, land-use variability and the spatiotemporal resolution of predictive models in archaeological heritage management. In H. Kamermans & M. van Leusen (Eds.), Predictive modeling for archaeological heritage management: A research agenda (pp. 149–168). Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 29).
Peeters, J. H. M. (2007). Hoge Vaart-A27 in context: Towards a model of Mesolithic-Neolithic land use dynamics as a framework for archaeological heritage management. Amersfoort.
Romeijn, J. W., van de Schoot, R., & Hoijtink, H. (2012). One size does not fit all: Derivation of a prior-adapted BIC. In D. Dieks, W. Gonzales, S. Hartmann, F. Stadler, T. Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Steele, K., & Werndl, C. (2013). Climate models, calibration, and confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(3), 609–635.
van Leusen, P. M. & Kamermans, H. (Eds.). (2005). Predictive modeling for archaeological heritage management: A research agenda. Amersfoort.
van Leusen, P. M., Millard, A. R., & Ducke, B. (2009). Dealing with uncertainty in archaeological prediction. In H. Kamermans, P. M. van Leusen, & Ph. Verhagen (Eds.), Archaeological prediction and risk management. Alternatives to current practice (pp. 123–160). Leiden.
Verhagen, P. (2007). Case studies in archaeological predictive modeling (p. 14). Leiden, The Netherlands: Archaeological Studies Leiden University.
Whitley, T. G. (2000). Dynamical systems modeling in archaeology: A GIS evaluation of site selection processes in the Greater Yellowstone region. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Pittsburgh.
Worrall, J. (2010). Error, tests, and theory confirmation. In D. G. Mayo & A. Spanos (Eds.), Error and inference: Recent exchanges on experimental reasoning, reliability, and the objectivity and rationality of science (pp. 125–154). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peeters, H., Romeijn, JW. (2016). Epistemic Considerations About Uncertainty and Model Selection in Computational Archaeology: A Case Study on Exploratory Modeling. In: Brouwer Burg, M., Peeters, H., Lovis, W. (eds) Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Archaeological Computational Modeling. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27831-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27833-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)