Deconstructing the crystal ball : the state of the art of predictive modelling for archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands (original) (raw)
This paper presents the first results of a three-year study into the application of predictive modelling techniques in archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands. Predictive maps play an increasingly important role in the decision making process for planning schemes on a municipal, provincial and national level but at the same time the validity and reliability of the models that form the basis of predictive modelling have been questioned internationally. In the Netherlands a national research team recently started a project called “Strategic research into, and development of best practice for, predictive modelling on behalf of Dutch Cultural Resource Management”. The goal of the project, which runs until the beginning of 2005, is a thorough analysis of the various models and methods used in current predictive modelling practice, the exploration of possibilities for methodological improvement and greater efficiency, and the formulation of recommendations for the Dutch Hand...
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Since 2007, virtually all local authorities in the Netherlands have used archaeological resource maps, predictive archaeological maps and policy maps to help them meet their responsibility for heritage management. The Cultural Heritage Agency gathered and systematically analysed the maps in use: a total of 1666 maps and 611 accompanying reports. Subsequently national overviews of each type of map were produced. The predictive archaeological maps are based on predictive modelling combined with expert judgment. It is often unclear what predictions are actually based on. It was found that, when maps are fitted together, they do not match well in terms of either form or content. Differences between maps raise questions when it comes to projects that straddle municipal boundaries. The discrepancies are associated with the almost complete lack of overall detailed guidelines for map production, differences in the predictive models used, the sources consulted, the design and conditions imposed by the authorities commissioning the maps, as well as in the financial resources available. Central government is therefore keen to encourage local authorities to ensure that their predictive maps are more compatible in the future. Further, verifying the predictive models on the basis of resources identified in new field research could help enhance archaeological heritage management. This will enhance local authorities’ ability to make informed choices in their archaeology policy.
Archaeological Predictive Modelling Used For Cultural Heritage Management
2012
This paper considers the possible use of archaeological predictive modelling for cultural heritage management in the UK by comparing the technique with the current system of cultural heritage management. The paper examines aspects such as data interrogation, limitations of the technique, the testing of models, criticisms against the use of the technique and costs. It is concluded that the technique would be viable in the UK in certain circumstances, such as for large projects and if paid for by developer. It would not be viable for the majority of cases of cultural heritage management within urban areas, as defined by local development plans. The success of the technique appears to be dependent upon the terrain being modelled and the archaeological data available.
This paper is published in Sidestone Press 'Fernweh. Which is a collection of essays on archaeological heritage management issues dedicated to Professor dr. Willem J.H. Willems. Willem Willems (1950-2014) was one of the most prominent and influential Dutch archaeologists. He directed three national archaeological and heritage organizations, and played a major role in the development of both national and international heritage management systems. The essays in' Fernweh' contribute to contemporary debates in archaeological heritage management. They concern the various dimensions and consequences of current policies and practices and address the meaning and use of the world's legacies from the past in and for society, at present and in the future. The overarching theme is the question of whose heritage we are protecting and how we can better valorise research results and connect with society. This paper deals with the aspects of predictive modelling in archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands both in the past as in the future.
Predictive assessment as a tool in Dutch maritime heritage management.
Background As a complement to outright protection, archaeological heritage management is more and more concerned V~rith mitigation of adverse effect-; of all sorts of activities. It applies to maritime heritage no less than to other heritage categories and it applies both to known and to yet unknown archaeological sites. This may be simply said, but it is one of the major challenges of any mitigation strategy: how, can one take intoaccountwhatone does not know? Moreover, paradoxically, what one does know in detail, has, at least partially been destroyed by research and excavation. In order to address these challenges one can choose a predictive approach. Predictive modelling has it risks, but it also has its assets in situations where far-reaching decisions have to be taken based on meagre evidence. Under those circumstances, predictive models can be a useful tool. To the background of such considerations, a predictive archaeological map has been developed for archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands, by the National Sen>ice for Archaeological Heritage, ROB, AJthough the map renders both terrestrial and maritime archaeological values, this paper is concerned '\\rith the maritime aspects only . .
Archaeological predictive modelling in cultural resource management
Predictive models are becoming increasingly often used in archaeological cultural resource management. Beside this, extremely successful and productive application, predictive models can be and are used as an effective tool in archaeological site location explanation. The main objective of this presentation is to discuss and present some aspects of practical applications of predictive modelling. The presentation will start with theoretical introduction to predictive modelling and will be followed with some methodological issues. Special emphasis will be paid to the presentation of several case studies. The first set of case studies will focus on the application of multiple overlays of spatial information layers for modelling potential of Bronze Age settlement sites location and barrows. Further more some results of the multivariate statistics for the analysis of Roman settlement patterns will be presented. Finally, we will demonstrate how site locations were predicted in Slovenian highway constructions project. Presentation will be concluded with some general remarks and practical suggestions for future work.
2014
The identification of areas that are insignificant for archaeological research can be used for guidance and support in projects that involve decision-making about the use of land and modern development activities. On the other hand, the identification of areas significant for archaeological research can contribute to archaeological knowledge and mini-mise the risk of unsuccessful excavations. This paper presents a review of the most recent and representative applications of pre-dictive modelling in Archaeology, which demonstrate that predictive models can be successfully exploited by archaeological research and Cultural Heritage Management (CHM).
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
Leusen, M. van and H. Kamermans (eds.), Predictive Modelling for Archaeological Heritage Management: A Research Agenda. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 29. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort, pp. 25-92., 2005