Published as: Barcel, J.A.. 2005, Multidimensional Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Beyond the GIS paradigm.

In Reading the Historical Spatial Information in the World. Studies for Human Cultures and Civilizations based on Geographic Information System. Kyoto: International Institute for Japanese Studies. Pp. 47-62

MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPATIAL ANALYSIS IN ARCHAEOLOGY. Beyond the GIS paradigm.

Juan A. Barcel UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA
Departament de Prehistria Facultat de Lletres. 08193 Bellaterra (SPAIN) jbarcelo@seneca.uab.es http://seneca.uab.es/prehistoria/Barcelo

Towards a general definition of archaeological site An archaeological site is the place where social action was performed. This is a right definition, but probably an oversimplified definition. Social action is never performed isolated or in an abstract vacuum. Social action is produced in physical space, and this is not a neutral container, but the result of myriad of natural and social processes performed before the social action that originally constitutes what we have called a site. On the other hand, each individualized social action is influenced by other social actions and natural events, both simultaneously, and also after the original one. In this sense, an archaeological site is a complex relational framework in which social action and natural processes are related in a complex, dynamic and dialectical sense. It is a sequence of changes and modifications acting over the consequence of former changes and modifications (Estevez and Vila 2000, Barcel et al. 2005). The negative side of this definition is that there is no possibility of knowing why a single agent made a single action somewhere and at some moment. But it does not presuppose the implicit randomness or indeterminism of social action. The fact that we cannot predict the location and characteristics of a single action, does not mean, that a social action cannot be analyzed as conditioned by a series of social actions and determined by other actions. This is a consequence of the fact that social actions are (or have been) performed in an intrinsically better or worse spatial/temporal location for some purpose because of their position relative to some other location for another action or the reproduction of the same action (Barcel and Pallars 1998). As a social science, archaeology is not interested on individual action, or on individual psychology. We are interested in collective action, that is, why different people made the same action, or different actions at the same place and at the same moment. Our research goal should be to explain the sources or causes of that variability. Why this group of people hunted always rabbits when living in those mountains? Why funerary practices are different among different social classes? Why this people used the same instruments to prepare their food, whereas this other group of people used a totally different toolbox for the same task? To understand the diversity and variability of collective social action, we should understand that it varies according three different dimensions: space, time and quality

(Engels 1883, Kondrashin 1997). According to an ordinary definition quality is a structurally undivided combination of indications, features of some substance or a thing revealed in a system of relations with other substances or things. Quality is the essential determination of any action due to which it is just this action but not any other one and it makes certain difference with other actions. Hence each social action may be performed at a specific place and in a specific moment has its own definite composition of peculiarities and signs which it reveals while relating with other actions (social or natural, collective or individual) and their material consequences. But as it is well known an external revealing of qualitative characteristics of an action in a presumed system of relations is its function. That is why with a change of qualitative characteristics of some action its functional characteristics are changing as well. Changes of functional characteristics of some material formations by comparison with others are the relative motion in quality (Kondrashin 1997). Functional features of any social action can be revealed only in a framework of relations with other similar actions. A single, isolated social action cannot reveal its functional peculiarities and be used for material development. Thus the possession of quality or a functional definition dictates to every action the necessity to be dialectically related with other actions made by the same agent or other agents. Due to this principle the change in quality entails a compulsory interaction of agents, places and moments being at the same time its main reason. The change in quality is also tightly linked with the change in time and in space. Without change in time it is impossible to imagine qualitative changes, it is an independent variable of the said interaction. There is space only, when the observer does not consider time, that is dynamics. And we can speak of time as a generalization of changes and modifications in place. A pattern existing at one moment of time is the result of the operation of processes that have differential spatial impacts. The key aspect is here the location of quality changes. Location should be understood in its spatiotemporal signification. We understand by it, a characteristic of a concrete event that defines how the quality of the event has changed from state 01 to state 02 at two different places E1 and E2, and at two different moments of time T1 and T2. Therefore, when there is some regularity in the changes of quality of social action across space and time, we say that there is a certain degree of dependence between locations, and this dependence, is exactly what gives its appearance of unity to the archaeological site. What we are looking for are the causes of this location, and we are trying to explain them in terms of the "influence" that another event located in the space-time has on the events located in the proximity. The assumption is that space is a system of concrete relations between physical objects and time is some function of modifications which are going on in these objects. In other words it became a relative but not an absolute theory of space and time (Vieu 1997). Any formal or visible characteristics of an archaeological site is a consequence of social acts and natural events, which limit, constrain, and, in some cases, determine future actions. Location can only be understood in functional terms, that is, according to what changes at each place and at each moment. Consequently, to understand what an archaeological site is, we require knowledge about how social action has changed, and about the specific changes generated by social and natural processes. In other words, our analysis of the spatiotemporal variation of social action will remain incomplete if not coupled with an explanation based on the nature of the event. Therefore, an archaeological site should be explained in terms of the spatiotemporal influence an action performed at a location has over all locations in the proximity. According to this

idea, the degree of influence between neighbouring social actions depends on the knowledge each agent has of neighbouring agents, the spatial or temporal distance between social agents at different locations and the frequency and nature of interactions between agents at different locations. Distance is defined as the difference between the values of any property at two (or more) spatial/temporal locations (Gattrell 1983). The concept of Distance is seen as a causal mechanism, because we usually assume that everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things (Toblers law). This assumption is based on the Neighbourhood Principle (Boyce et al. 1967, 1971, Fix 1975), which relates the intensity of influences converging to a single location from the neighbouring locations. An action can generate the reproduction of similar actions around it, or it can prevent any other similar action in the same vicinity. Some of the actions performed in the vicinity of the location increase the chances of one type of action and decrease the chances of others. For instance, traditional conceptions defend the axiom that physical space determines settlement. That is, that settlement is a consequence of the environmental features or spatial properties of resources. I think that this is a too simple generalization. Social actions are not adapted to the environment, but productive actions (hunting, fishing, and gathering) determine the location of residential actions (settlement). What I am suggesting is that a social action can generate the reproduction of similar actions around it, or it can prevent any other similar action in the same vicinity. A settlement is not adapted to environmental conditions or resources, but it is the place where social agents perform labour. The spatial and temporal location of labour increases the chances of settlement in the vicinity of that place, and decreases the chances of other social actions (Barcel, Piana and Martinioni 2002, Barcel, Pelfer and Mandolesi 2002). What we are looking for is whether what happens (and happened) in one location is the cause of what happens (or will happen) in neighbouring locations (Barcel 2002). The analysis then pretends to examine if the characteristics in one spatiotemporal location have anything to do with characteristics in a neighbouring location, through the definition of a general model of spatiotemporal dependencies. Once we know whether social actions at neighbouring locations are similar or not, we should explain why the location of social actions is homogeneous or heterogeneous in the area defined by the performance of those actions. The characteristics of space as a dimension, rather than the properties of phenomena, which are located in space, are of central and overriding concern (Clark 1982). Causality at the archaeological level We cannot see in the present a series of actions performed in the past. We can perceive only a reduced subset of their material consequences. This means that we are studying a double causality chain. We do not have direct evidence for social actions performed in the past, however, through time social actions have produced as a consequence some observable modifications on natural things, and some of these modifications have been preserved until today. Although we do not know what actions have produced what material consequences, we can relate the variability of material consequences of social action with the variability of social actions through time and space. The nature of the archaeological problem is that we do not know how social actions produce their material effects, and hence, we cannot predict a social action given the presence of its effect. The only chance we have to solve this problem is relying in the

observed regularity of material outcomes of social action, and using it, in an heuristically way to build an input-output mapping, where initial state of the problem is the input (archaeological description of a material consequence of a social action), and its solution (the causing social action) will be the output. This task is best described as inverse engineering (Pizlo 2001). Inverse problems are among the most challenging in computational and applied science and have been studied extensively. Although there is no precise definition the term refers to a wide range of problems that are generally described by saying that they are problems where the answer is known, but not the question. Or where the results, or consequences are known, but not the cause. Cause can be defined as the way an entity becomes what it is (Bunge 1972); we can also say that a cause is the set of conditions, which determine the existence of any entity or the values of any property. In our case, the cause of the archaeological site is the way some group of people performed at different places and at different moments some social actions, which interplayed with other social actions and natural process generated at neighboring places and moments, until the formation of a complex system. It is important to realize that space, time and quality are properties of social acts, but they are not a cause in itself. All elements of the archaeological record, including spatial and temporal location, have been caused by social actions. All this means that in archaeology we should deal with events and not with objects. An event is an expression of the fact that any entity has some feature f, that this entity is in a state s and that the features defining state s of that entity are changing or not. The fact that a vessel with shape x has been found at a distinct place, and the fact that a lithic tool with texture t is the most abundant at a neighbor place, are events, because a social action has been performed at this spatial and temporal location (event), resulting in an assemblage with, among other things some specific shape and texture properties. Nevertheless, there is not any direct, mechanic or necessary connection between cause and effect (Anscome 1971, Bunge 1972, 1985, Tooley 1987, Karpinski 1990, Kellert 1992, Mellor 1995). There are many actions and processes; both social and natural having acted during and after a primary cause, and also primary causes act with different intensities and in different contexts, in such a way that those effects may seem unrelated with causes. Some times, the social action is performed in one location, but the expected effect is not observable here and then, because the same action may not produce always the same archaeological features at the same location. Events are never produced isolated from other events. It is the spatial and temporal location of a nearly infinite quantity and diversity of related or unrelated events, which modifies the expectable consequences and effects of causal actions. An additional difficulty is that the material record recovered at a site is not a direct consequence of a single social action. Regardless of how much evidence is present, the archaeologist cannot read directly from the archaeological record the formation process of an archaeological site as the consequence of a social process or sequence of social actions. Interpreting the content and frequency of an archaeological assemblage must be grounded in an understanding of both the social and natural events that have influenced the presence/absence, alteration, and displacement (relative to it as a primary site of production, use or discard) of its individual components and of the assemblage as a whole (Urbanczyk 1986, Hassan 1987). That means that the outcomes of material action may be patterned, but it does not follow that the patterning of the items and the patterning of the social action that produced them are identical (Schiffer 1987). The major problem is the degree to which the accumulation or deposit of archaeological items can be attributed to social action. Most post-depositional processes have the effect

of disordering artefact patterning in the archaeological record, and increasing entropy. Loss, discard, reuse, decay, and archaeological recovery are numbered among the diverse formation processes that in a sense, mediate between the past behaviours of interest and their surviving traces. They make archaeological assemblages more amorphous, lower in artefact density, more homogeneous in their internal density, less distinct in their boundaries, and more similar (or at least skewed) in composition. Furthermore, some post-depositional disturbance process may increase the degree of patterning of artefact disturbances, but towards natural arrangements (Ascher 1968, Carr 1984). Cowgill (1970) proposed a preliminary solution: we have to recognize three basic populations (in the statistical sense): (1) events in the past, (2) material consequences created and deposited by those events, and (3) artefacts that remain and are found by the archaeologist (physical finds). At the beginning, human remains are organized in the archaeological record in a way coherent with the social practices that generated it. Once the site of social action was abandoned, those remains are subjected to bio-geologic forces, which introduce a new material organization. This new patterning of social material remains is opposite to the original pattern, and consequently increases entropy (des-organization, chaos, ambiguity), until the original patterning become unrecognisable. That means, that depending of the degree of entropy, the transformed archaeological set is not necessary a random sample of the original population. By stressing the discontinuities, Cowgill states for viewing formation process as agents of bias within a sampling framework. Each population is a potentially biased sample drawn from the previous population that was itself a potentially biased sample. We may view these discontinuities as sampling biases in the sense that what we recover and observe does not proportionately represent each aspect of the antecedent behaviour. Nevertheless, changes and transformations in the original patterning of archaeological data are not a simple accumulation process from low entropy sets to higher entropy patterns (disturbed deposits), but a non-linear sum of quantitative changes, which beyond a threshold, produce a qualitative transformation. A depositional set may be thought of as a mathematical set, the organization of which is the end product of structural transformations operating upon a previously structured set (Estevez 2000, Mameli, Estvez and Barcel 2002). In this sense, the occurrence of specific formation process is determined by specific causative variables. Every archaeological event is likely to have a unique spatial variation, and this variation is likely to be different, and therefore discontinuous, from one individual location to the next, may be directionally dependent, and possibly consists of several superimposed variations. The main point is not the recovery of the activity set by reversing the formation process of depositional sets. Rather, the processes responsible for generating organizing, preserving, and presenting the archaeological record should be viewed simply as a complex formation processes. Attention should be drawn to the dynamic life history of archaeological remains and the processes of different temporal frequency on the ultimate position, content, and pattern of archaeological remains. This perspective provides a strong antidote to the facile reconstitution of culture by correcting for apparent disturbances or distortions. The practical solution to this paradox is to consider that cause or determination can be defined as a probability function between social action (production, distribution, use)

and material appearance (shape, size, content, composition, texture, location). Therefore, if archaeological assemblages should be regarded as aggregates of individual elements, then they interact with various agents of modification in statistical fashion, with considerable potential for variation in the traces they ultimately may bear. In this way, changes in the density probability function of artefact locations are related with changes in the probability value of a social action being performed at a specific location. The approach here relies on a prior hypothesis of spatial smoothness (see also Barcel & Pallars 1996, 1998), which considers that two neighbouring observations are supposed to have been more likely originated from the same group than two observations lying far apart. Any archaeological feature has a source of variation which is regionally dependent, but spatially indeterminate in a mathematical sense. Within such a region there should be some statistical relationship between the difference in value of a regionalized feature at any pair of points and their distance apart, and at greater distances the differences should be statistically independent of each other (Houlding 2000, Fotheringham et al. 2000, Haining 2003, articulo, Archaeology and geostatistics en journal of scientific arch.). Consequently, the probability that a social action occurs at a specific location is related to the occurrence of its material effects (the archaeological record) at nearby locations. The question is how the locational differences among the effects of cause C have determined or conditioned the locational differences among the effects of cause B. This property has also been called locational inertia: it is a time-lag effect that activities experience in the adjustment to new locational influences (Wheeler et al. 1998). We need to evaluate the presence and significance of a number of possible influences and complications in the spatiotemporal variability of social action based on the spatiotemporal variation in the data. Archaeological features vary in some more or less continuous and frequently complex way throughout. Their variation is typically the result of a combination of geological, biological and social processes, each with its own spatiotemporal variation in scale and complexity. The formation processes that have combined over many hundreds or thousands or even millions of years to produce the complexity of the archaeological site are so many and so varied in scale and influence that the changes in archaeologically visual features (shape, size, composition, texture, location) are not determined univocally by social action (production, distribution and use). But there is some probability that in some productive, distributive or use contexts, some values are more probable than others. In other words, changes in the probability of the performance of a social action determine changes in the probability value of the spatial variability of material effects, not only of the same action, but also of other actions performed at the same place at different moments.

The many dimensions of archaeological spaces The aim is to develop an understanding of the general principles which determine the spatial and temporal location of those observable properties of material effects caused by social actions. The basic assumption is that an archaeological site is not randomly organized, nor it is the result of chance alone. Spatiotemporal variation of any

archaeological feature cannot be completely random; it has after all resulted from a number of individually more or less determinate processes. This is the obvious result to the fact that social action is never performed in a spatial vacuum. We have seen that it is necessarily related to other social and natural events which generate in their turn a discontinuity in physical space, when the causative actions or formation process acting on neighboring locations are different. This discontinuity is the consequence of interfacial boundaries or contacts (Rao 1972, Lth 1993), which are the place where two different formation processes seem to join or to differentiate. In other words, social action variability with respect to distance is statistically measurable only within a finite region defined by some interfacial boundaries, which are in their turn the consequence of some discontinuities in the spatiotemporal variation of other archaeological features. This is the underlying supposition of spatial analysis in different disciplines (Groshong 1999). Where physical space is undifferentiated, the effects of social action cannot be asserted. We cannot explain the history of water in a lake, because water is spatially undifferentiated. However, if we can distinguish discontinuities along the basin lake perimeter, we can follow the geological transformation of this landscape. In the same way, we are able to define social action only in terms of its observable effects, that is, in terms of observable spatial modifications generated by social action It is only when physical space (ground surface) has been modified as a result of human agency, that we can speak about an archaeological site (Barcel et al. 2003, 2005). The importance of observable discontinuities in physical space to archaeological characterization lies in the fact that they frequently influence the spatiotemporal variation of other social actions and natural events. Consequently, the spatiotemporal structure of archaeological sites depends very much on where and how different discontinuities are formed. In this sense, the variability of the material outcomes of some social actions and natural events seem to act as classifiers associated with discrete archaeological units with distinct boundaries. However, no simple division of archaeological space into visually apparent regions will give us a model of the spatial probability for social actions (Barcel and Pallars 1998). Spatiotemporal discontinuities are not necessarily visual features of the archaeological space. We are not interested in analyzing a spatiotemporal discontinuity in itself, but as a source of variation in the probability of social actions. It is of paramount importance then to describe not only the presence or absence of such discontinuities, but specially the physical and mechanical attributes that control their visual features (shape, size, texture, composition and location). After all, such discontinuities should be explained as the qualitative nature of observable changes in the physical space generated by social action, and their properties also explain how they influence the spatiotemporal location of other actions. A spatiotemporal discontinuity cannot be defined only in terms of their boundaries (Barcel et al. 2003). They should be analyzed as the measured changes in value in the spatiotemporal variability of an archaeological event We may concentrate on the two main features of social spatial dynamics to understand the formation mechanisms of spatiotemporal discontinuities: These characteristics are: the statistical changes in physical space as a result of social action (Si) the qualitative changes in physical space as a result of social action (Qi)

Si is any material outcome of social action which can be sampled or measured in terms of numerical values exhibiting a variation: geomechanical properties, mineral grades, soil morphological features, material accumulations like the frequency of a pottery type, the frequency of bones, etc. Qi are observable characteristics of the archaeological space that have a finite number of possible descriptive values, and uniform value within finite, irregular regions. Those qualitative properties are associated with discrete archaeological areas with distinct boundaries (a wall, an occupation floor, a pit, etc.). The statistically induced modifications in physical space can be understood in terms of the perception of concentrated and disperse patterns of material consequences of social actions. When an artefact cannot perform any utilitarian nor symbolic function, and reuse does not occur, it begins a process which may involve several storage and transportation steps called discard or refuse. Refuse disposal consists of many diverse processes, varied combinations of which may result in artefact deposits with a statistical nature. Depositional events are then usually referred as accumulation or aggregation episodes, in which the probability that a social action occurs is related to its dimensions. In other words, the more frequent the refuse materials at a specific place (location), the higher the probability that a social action was performed in the vicinity of that place. Statistical modifications which characterize archaeological space are the material outcome of two different classes of processes: accumulation and attraction. Nevertheless, statistical aggregation or dispersion is just only one visible aspect of social action. Social action and natural events also generate qualitative visual modifications. Ground surface is modified positively and/or negatively, both by human action and/or by bio-geologic processes. In the case of positive modifications generated by human action, we have the building of vertical structures: walls, columns, arcs, barrows or by bio-geologic processes; in the case of negative structures we have holes, caves, quarries, trenches and pits). In some cases, we can also refer to horizontal modifications: occupation floor, roads, tracks, etc. The apparently amorphous accumulations of sediment or stones resulting from the collapse of a wall are also phases in an archaeological spatiotemporal trajectory. All of these are physical modifications, which should be used as additional dimensions of archaeological spatial variability. Both variables are intrinsically related, especially in the way successive qualitative modifications and statistical accumulations proceed through time and space. Assuming that a measure of density is a function of the probability an action was performed at that point, we can say that the area where the spatial density is highest, is the attraction point for all material consequences; however, these statistical consequences of a social action are in some way determined by the topology generated by previous social and natural events having modified physical space. Spatial variation of a quantitative variable is invariably influenced by secondary properties and characteristics of the host ground surface, which may be qualitative in origin. These properties have unique, independent spatial variation in their own, often subject to abrupt spatial discontinuity caused by structural deformations; as a result the statistical properties of social action are likely to include similar discontinuities in its variation. If we measure these secondary properties at the time we sample the original outcomes of the social action and carefully analyze their interdependencies, then we might be able to perform an exhaustive characterization of all relevant properties and variables. We should take into account that certain archaeological components are accumulated upon a pre-existing original ground (a surface), whereas others are deposited in slopes of posteriors contacts. In the first case, the observed discontinuity is uniform, then all

surface points have the same interfacial contribution, and all points have the same potential to induce changes on a contacting surface (energy). When all the points have the same energy, we call an equipotential surface. Archaeological spatial components are defined generally by not equipotential surface contacts, because surface energy varies from coordinate to coordinate. That means that when a surface interacts with another surface, higher points have more intense effects (higher energy) that lower areas. This fact has been studied in terms of progressive loss of substance or displacement of material from the surface of the ground occurring as a result of different social or natural actions at the surface. Displaced or lost areas are the lowest energy areas on the surface, whereas hard protuberances causing the displacement or loss are the highest energy points. The underlying idea is that changes in the topology of archaeological space determine changes in the statistical properties of the archaeological record. Both are a consequence of the particular interplay between natural and social events across space and time, and both are the evidence we use to define social activity area in terms of the probability of an unobserved action, which has caused the spatial distribution of observable material effects. Assuming that spatiotemporal discontinuities are a function of the probability an action was performed at that location, we can say that any distinct region in archaeological space defined by the topological and statistical properties of a social action acts as an attractor for the material consequences of the same or any other action spatiotemporally related. Furthermore, if we observe inside the attraction basin for a social action the material effects of other actions, we can conclude, that some social actions attract other social actions. The concepts of attraction and accumulation allow the study of social space in dynamic terms, that is, taking into account that social action caused quality changes in time and space. Each localized event in space and time, be it an individual, a collective action, or a series of actions, develops together with its environment as a complex network of bi-directional relationships at multiple levels, conditioning the performance of the action and successive actions performed in the neighbourhood. On the one side, it materializes a complex field of attraction, radiation, repulsion, and cooperation around this activity, producing the necessary energy for the functioning and even the existence of the social system. On the other side, activities localized around this activity influence it through different interaction channels (Camagni 1992). What we are really studying is the directionality of social action, and this can be done by means of the analyses of locations as places of attraction or accumulation. Our objective is then to analyze how the statistical and qualitative outcomes of social action vary significantly from one spatiotemporal location to another. Formation process and accumulation effects appear in some locations and not in other because of their position relative to some other location for another process or a reproduction of the same process. An explanatory model then should pretend to understand whether the characteristics in one location (for instance a wall, or an activity area) have anything to do with characteristics at a neighbor location (for instance an accumulation of pottery or lithics, or bones) through the definition of a general model of spatiotemporal dependence. In other words, our main objective should be thow distinct formation process has influence over spatiotemporal discontinuities observed through the site. Understanding the Past in the Present

In this paper an archaeological site has been considered as the result of successive and overlapping modification steps (both qualitative and statistical in nature). Therefore, we may define archaeological space as a sequence of finite states of a temporal trajectory, where an original entity -physical space, that is, ground surface- is modified successively, by accumulating things on it, by deforming a previous accumulation or by direct physical modification (building, excavation) (Barcel et al. 2003, 2005). Actual technology of GIS software does not allow this goal. Most of them are passive repositories of data, with a limited functionality of answering locational questions. What we need is not a database of maps and archaeological data, but an explanatory model of the dynamics of dialectical formation process, both at the micro and the macro level. This can be computed easily by estimating different spatial probability density functions for each material outcome associated with different social actions. The starting point is completely different from current GIS programs. Mathematically, the spatiotemporal probability of a social action is seen as a five-dimensional vector. Si (Qi, t, x, y, z) Here, the average density of observed changes in physical space (Si: probability of social action) is related to spatial position -Cartesian spatial coordinates (x, y, z: North, East and Elevation, or latitude, longitude, and height)-, temporal position (t), and the form and arrangement of physical space as a result of another, spatially related event (social or natural) (Qi). In this model, Cartesian coordinates represent the outcomes of geological and social processes that lead to the configuration of physical space, which is the ground surface where we have observed the statistical disposition (or accumulation) of the material outcomes of social action (Si). To adequately represent different qualititative modifications in physical space defining the visual appearance of each location (Qi), we must consider a semi-infinite continuum made up of discrete, irregular, discontinuous geometrical shapes (surfaces, volumes) defined by characteristics which in turn influence the variation of an archaeological or geological feature. The idea is that interfacial boundaries between contacting phases are dynamically constructed, and hence conformable through space and time, in such a way that they can be considered as space and time shape constrained deformable regions, which influences the way additional features locate in space and time. Within them, there should be some statistical relationship between the difference in value of the dependent regionalized variable which defines the discontinuity at any pair of points and their distance apart (Houlding 2000, p. 5). Just as a theory of time must articulate raw duration into stretches of time (intervals) and their endpoints (events), so a theory of space will articulate raw extension into chunks of space and their boundaries (Galton 1997). Within this spatiotemporal theory, a phase has been defined as a homogenous region in space delimited by a well-defined discontinuity or boundary (Barcel et al. 2003). We may assume that events are single outcomes of social action within a phase, and exhibit a statistically measurable degree of continuity within it. Archaeological phases have three main properties: geometry, topology and appearance: a pattern of discontinuities in boundary orientation (curvature), that is, shape. It is defined as the information that is invariant under translations, rotations and isotropic rescaling, that is, those aspects of the data that remain after location

and scale (size) information are discounted (Small 1996). It is then a quantitative property about spatial location and size. Phases are spatial units, and consequently they have size and location, whose relationship can be examined in terms of shape. Shape is a field for physical exploration: it has not only aesthetic qualities, nor is shape just a pattern of recognition. Shape also is determining the spatial and thus the material and the physical qualities of archaeological site components. a pattern of discontinuities between boundaries at different spatial positions, that is topology. a pattern of discontinuities in the visual appearance, that is texture. It is the name we give to these variations, which seem to be usually caused as a result of the process that created the boundary discontinuity (Barcel et al. 2001, Adn et al. 2003). Any location has variations in its local properties like albedo and colour variations, uniformity, density, coarseness, roughness, regularity, linearity, directionality, frequency, hardness, brightness, bumpiness, (Tuceryan and Jain 1993, Fleming 1999), which seem to be usually caused as a result of the action or process that modified physical space in that specific way. All these perceived qualities or attributes of spatial locations within archaeological space play an important role in describing the sources of irregularity and surface variation which are responsible of specific textures. Texture then, may be defined as the local variation of brightness from one pixel to the next or within a small region, where the brightness of a point is a function of the brightness and location of the light source combined with the orientation and nature of the surface being viewed. If the brightness is interpreted as elevation in a representation of the image as a surface, then the texture is a measure of the surface roughness.

In a standard GIS framework, an archaeological phase would be represented as a threedimensional region in space (a volume); its boundary or functional definitional discontinuity is a surface. But a surface also has a kind of extension, but with two degrees of freedom rather than three; a chunk of surface extension is an area, and its boundary is an edge. An edge has extension with one degree of freedom; a chunk od edge extension is a length or arc, and its boundary consists of a pair of points. Nevertheless, we have seen that archaeological phases are necessarily multidimensional. We need a minimum of five dimensions to adequately represent the dynamic character of spatial discontinuities. And this as something that GIS programs are not designed to solve. What we need is some way to define a mapping from times to positions (Galton 1997): for each time t we should specify the position of the observed material outcomes of social action or the natural event having influenced on the social action at t. This simple statement actually conceals a multitude of complexities. Archaeological dynamics is typically seen as a continuous trajectory across space and time in the sense that to change from one position to another, the material outcomes of social action have to pass through intermediate positions. We can propose a model of this trajectory based on two properties: The observation of a socially generated change in the statistical or qualitative properties of physical space is an event. It is represented by one real vector variable r of four dimensions, which may be considered as coordinates of an

abstract n-dimensional space named the phase space. As we have seen, those dimensions refer to the ground surface where the event takes place (Cartesian coordinates), and the attraction basin of related social actions (a partition of archaeological space in terms of Si and Qi alternatively. The particular relations between events can be described by a function r(t), according to which the events trace out a continuous curve in the phase space named a phase curve or trajectory. The set of all possible spatiotemporal changes is named the phase flow.

Our problem is that the dimensionality of this trajectories is too high to be adequately represented using first-order equations /t = v(r,t) The alternative is way to explore the dynamics of the archaeological space by means of the elaboration of a visual model that qualitatively represents its states, events and transitions. that is to say, a multidimensional visualization of the changes of state in the space and through the time. The best way is by imposing a temporal slicing of the archaeological phase flow (Barcel and Vicente 2004). Since we have defined the archaeological events in term of the temporary location of the changes of state between space locations, the intention of the such a slicing will be to visually represent the transitions between events. This implies to decompose the model into a number of submodels, each for a time slice: W(t=1,x,y,z) W(t=2,x,y,z) W(t=3,x,y,z) W(t=4,x,y,z) In that sense, a temporal stack is a display of multiple temporally differentiated 4D scalar maps in a single window. Stacks can be viewed from different perspectives, treating the layers of the stack as another spatial dimension. For instance, the figure shows a 4D representation of an archaeological time step. Here grey level is used to represent different W values at different x,y,z coordinates. Let W' be the value at a position in the array defined by t = t', x=x', y = y',and z = z'. This datum will be rendered in the data view as a colored pixel. The grey level is defined by a data-to-grey mapping, or grey table, and the position of the pixel in the window is defined by a data-to-view coordinate mapping.

Fig. . 4D representation of an archaeological time step

If we have sampled 3 temporal periods, each containing, for instance a 10 x 100 x 200 x 200 data array, we can integrate all data into a single volumetric set with 3 x 10 x 100 x 200 x 200 array, where 3 is the number of temporal steps (slices), 10 the number of values of the W characteristic, and 100 x 200 x 300 the dimensionality of the 3D grid where spatial values vary.

Fig. . A 5Dimensional representation of an archaeological phase flows

A series of cross-sectional surfaces of this type is referred to as a volumetric dataset or simply as a dataset. Such a data set is represented by a series of volumes, each containing a similar n-dimensional data array. Collectively, these files are interpreted as a single array of n+1 dimensions. Processing a volumetric dataset begins by stacking the slices of a given dataset in computer memory according to the interpixel and interslice distances so that the data exists in a "virtual" coordinate space which accurately reflects the real world dimensions of the originally sampled volume. The next step is to create additional slices to be inserted between the dataset's actual slices so that the entire volume, as it exists in computer memory, is represented as one solid block of data. The number of slices needed to fill in the blanks is based on the dataset's interpixel and interslice spacing and the slices needed are created through interpolation.

The visual model allows an interpretation of the spatiotemporal variability of the material consequences of social action in terms of discrete, contiguous, irregular surfaces, with uniform value throughout each volume. They are not a representation of a physical container for archaeological material, but a partition of archaeological space in terms of spatiotemporal discrete units where the probability of a deposition or postdeposition event is the highest. In this sense, it is a multidimensional probability map. Now that we have created a geometric model that represents the spatiotemporal probability of the different social actions computed from the spatiotemporal variability of their material outcomes, we can compute some basic statistics for the model, including intensity, extent and directionality. The last one is particularly interesting because it is a good explanation of the propensities and probable influences acting among possible locations.

Conclusions Social action does not make sudden nor random jumps from one location to another. Our objective is then to analyse where, when and why a social action varies from one location (temporal-spatial) to another. In other words, the main objective should be the correlation of different social actions: how the spatial distribution of an action has an influence over the spatial distribution of other(s) action(s), how the temporal displacement of an action has an influence over the spatial distribution of other(s) action(s), how the temporal displacement of an action has an influence over the temporal displacement of other(s) action(s), how the spatial distribution of an action has an influence over the temporal displacement of other(s) action(s).

The main assumption is that the spatial and temporal location of human action is a consequence of other actions, both human and bio-geologic, which limit, constrain, and in some cases, determine future actions. Therefore, we are looking for the influence an action performed at a location has over all material evidences observed in the proximity. An action can generate the reproduction of similar actions around it, or it can prevent any other similar action in the same vicinity. Some of the actions performed in the vicinity of the location increase the probability of an action and decrease the probability of others. In our case, the events are actions (social and/or natural) that generate modifications in the values of the statistical and qualitative properties of physical space. In this context,

the transitions will talk about to the changes in the space and temporary location of the material consequences of these actions, represented by topological discontinuities between the values of r. We have seen that transitions or PHASES space are secondary properties of physical space. In this way: from the statistical analysis of the variability of texture or differences of composition it emerges a pattern of second-order discontinuities from the statistical analysis of the variability of shape and size between spatiotemporal consecutive discontinuities it emerges a pattern of gradients, determining the presence and extent of discrete units in archaeological spacetime. The phase flow of the archaeological space emerges from the regularities at the level of the discrete spatio-temporal units functionally differentiated

Therefore, it seems possible to measure the presence/absence of degrees of spatiotemporal continuity (or quasi-continuity) in the local values that adopt the statistical and qualitative properties that characterize the material consequences of the causal action. Each one of these discrete units, will correspond to a transition, and can be defined as that limit that indicates an interruption or variation in the causal process. If space is discrete, what is our case, then we may assume that spatial differences in the material consequences of social event are related in some way (within a limited distance in space and time), whereas the values themselves may be indeterminate. It means that the material consequences of social action, as evidenced in the statistical and qualitative characteristics of physical space, only vary within a single phase, which is in the attraction basin of a previous complex of social and natural events. If time is discrete what is also our case, then there is a fixed upper limit to the dynamics of social change. In discrete time, the position or location of a single material outcome will be specified for each interval. It does not make much sense to give the position at a specific moment, because the instants in discrete time are the meeting points of neighboring intervals. In this paper, the objective has been to determine a meaningful relationship between difference-in-values (variance in the quality of social action) and difference-in-location (variance in spatiotemporal changes). This relationship, if it exists, is essentially a measure of how difference in value changes through time and space. Intuitively we expect any such relationship to show that variance increases as distance increases. In other words, we expect social events close together to have relatively small differences, and those further apart to have relatively large differences. At greater distances, both in time and in space, as the sample become independent of each other, we expect the variance of the samples to oscillate about some constant value. The goal of archaeological research should then be to find the hidden relationship between space-time and constituent events of an archaeological site formation process. This approach defines archaeological space as a sequence of finite states of a temporal

trajectory, where an entity (ground surface) is modified successively as a consequence of:

Construction - deposits and features derived from building activities such as land raising, levelling, trenches and posts and floors for buildings, structures, further revetments, roads and land boundaries. Use of an area it can be represented by thin spreads of occupation debris and 'trample' on floors and roads, or by rubbish accumulation in pits and middens. The use of an area could also include plough soil and marks in fields, garden soil or primary ditch and pit fills. Alteration - A building or structure may still remain standing but parts could have been added or altered. Within this new structure further signs of use could have taken place. Disuse - when parts of a structure or an entire building are destroyed or out of use. The reason for it may be demolition, fire destruction, collapse, robbing at various stages, Abandonment - if structures are not occupied and maintained nature takes over and counteracts human efforts by weathering, decay and vegetation: a natural interface.

The idea has been to decompose the archaeological space into observable temporal discontinuities to be able to understand how the archaeological space was formed and transformed by human action and natural processes. In that sense, each spatial component should be considered as an event, and the archaeological site becomes a sequence of events, with an implicit dynamic character (an archaeological process). Studies of formation processes on archaeological sites have demonstrated that this trajectory of modification stages may be complex and unpredictable using deterministic laws (Adams and Brooke 1995: 94). Blurred intervals between successive or even contemporary events, perceived differences and similarities between them, and the scale at which physical attributes are noted are all issues that challenge existing notions of the formation, recording, and interpretation of archaeological sites. A decomposition of archaeological process into events is not an easy task. Archaeological events or modification steps are the result of the interaction of different factors from many sources (Stein 1987, Schiffer 1987, Hassan 1987, Castro et al. 1993, Varien and Mills 1997, Estevez 2000, Mameli et al. 2001). Consequently, the archaeological site has to bee understood as a complex aggregate of individual elements interacting with different formative/modificative agents in a statistical way. Walls, pits, graves, occupation floors, activity areas, material accumulations or any other spatial component should be considered as stochastic sets of spatial features, whose patterning is the final result of structural transformations which have been acting upon a previously structured place. The bigger the number of different social and natural actions at a specific location, the greater the variation or entropy (disorder, chaos and ambiguity) of that place (Ascher 1968, Carr 1984, Urbanczyk 1986). That is to say, the more heterogeneous and diverse is the nature of the archaeological space, the greater the diversity of spatial modifications generated by human or biogeologic action, and the more different components will be identified in archaeological space, as a consequence of a greater number of causal (formative/deformative) processes.

References. Adn et al. 2003 Adams, M. and Brooke, C. 1995. Unmanaging the past: truth, data and the human being. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 28(2): 93-104.
ANSCOMBE,G.E.M., 1971, Causality and Determination. Cambridge University Press.

ASCHER, R., 1968, Times arrow and the archaeology of a contemporary community. In Settlement archaeology, Edited by K.C. Chang, pp. 43-52. National Press Books, Palo Alto.
BARCELO, J.A., 2002, Spatial-Temporal modelling in Archaeology Archeologia e Calcolatori 13 (in press)
BARCELO, J.A., PALLARES, M., 1996, A Critique of G.I.S. in Archaeology. From visual seduction to spatial analysis. Archeologia e Calcolatori Num. 7, pp. 313-326. BARCELO,J.A., PALLARES,M., 1998, Beyond GIS: The archaeology of social spaces Archeologia e Calcolatori Num. 9, pp. 47-80 BARCELO, VICENTE 2004: VIENA

Barcel et al. 2001, Image quantification Liubjana Barcel, Piana and Martinioni 2002, Barcel, Pelfer and Mandolesi 2002 Barcel et al. 2003, creta Barcel et al. 2005: Alicante

BOYCE,A.J.., KUCHEMANN,C.F.., HARRISON, G.A., 1967, Neighbourhood knowledge and the distribution of marriage distances, Annals of Human Genetics 30, pp. 335-338. BOYCE,A.J.., KUCHEMANN,C.F.., HARRISON, G.A., 1971, Population Structure and movement patterns. In Biological Aspects of Demography. Edited by W.Brass. London, Taylor & Francis.

BUNGE,M., 1972, Causalidad. El principio de causalidad en la ciencia moderna. (trad. Castellana, 3 ed.). Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires.

BUNGE,M., 1985, Racionalidad y Realismo. Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

Camagni,R., 1992, Economia Urbana. Roma. La Nuova Italia Scientifica.

CLARK,D., 1982, Urban Geography. Jogn Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

CARR, C., 1984, The Nature of Organization of Intrasite Archaeological Records and Spatial Analytic Approaches to their Investigation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 7. Edited by M.B. Schiffer. New York, Academic Press, pp.103-222. CASTRO, P.V., LULL, MICO, R., 1993, Arqueologa: algo ms que Tafonoma. Arqueologa Espacial vol. 16-17, pp. 19-28. COWGILL, G.L., 1970, Some sampling and reliability problems in archaeology. In Archologie et Calculateurs. Problmes Semiologiques et Mathematiques. Colloque International du CNRS. Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 161-175.

Engels, F., 1883, [1968], Dialectics of Nature Internacional Publisher, Co. (see also the complete text at, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/)
ESTEVEZ, J., 2000, Aproximacin dialctica a la Arqueologa. Revista Atlntico Mediterrnea de Prehistoria No. 3. Cdiz (Spain).

Estevez y vila 2000, estratigrafia Dialectica

FIX, A.., 1975, Neighbourhood knowledge and marriage distance: The Semai case, Annals of Human genetics 37, pp. 327-332.

FLEMING,b., 1999, 3d Modeling and surfacing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, inc. San Francisco

FOTHERINGHAM,A.S., BRUNSDON,C., CHARLTON,M., 2000, Quantitative Geograpgy. Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis. London, SAGE Publications.
GALTON,a., 1997, Space, time and movement. In Spatial

and temporal Reasoning. Edited by O. Stock. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 319-352.

GATRELL,A.C.., 1983, Distance and Space: A Geographical Perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GROSHONG, R. H., 1999, 3-D Structural Geology. Springer-Verlag, New York

HAINING, R., 2003, Spatial data Analysis. Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. HASSAN, F.A., 1987, Re-Forming Archaeology: A Foreword to Natural Formation Processes and the archaeological Record. In Natural Formation Processes and the archaeological Record. Edited by D.T.Nash and M.D. Petraglia. Oxford, British archaeological Series S352, pp. 1-9. Houlding 2000
KARPINSKI,J., 1990, Causality in Social Research. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ. KELLERT, S.H., 1992, In the Wake of Chaos. University of Chicago Press.

Kondrashin,I., 1997, Dialectics of Matter. Durham, The Pentland Press Ltd.

LTH, H., 1993, Surfaces and interfaces of solids. Springer Verlag. Berlin. MAMELI, L., BARCELO,J., ESTVEZ,J., 2001., The statistics of Archaeological Deformation Proceses. An archaeozoological case. In Archaeological Informatics: Pushing the Envelope. Edited by G. Burenhult. Oxford, ArcheoPress (BAR Int. Series 1016), pp. 221-230.

MELLOR,D.H., 1995, The Facts of Causation. Londres: Routledge.

PIZLO,Z., 2001, Perception as viewed as an inverse problem. Vision Research 41 (25), pp. 3145-61.
RAO, S.R., 1972, surface phenomena. Hutchinson Educational Ltd., London.
SCHIFFER, M.B., 1987, Formation processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.

SMALL 1996: FORMA STEIN, J.K., 1987, Deposits for Archaeologists. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 11. Edited by M.B. Schiffer. New York, Academic Press, pp. 337395.

TUCERYAN, M., JAIN, A.K., 1993, Texture Analysis. In Handbook of Pattern Recognition & Computer Vision. Edited by C.H. Chen, L.F. Pau, P.S.P. Wang. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 235276.

Urbanczyk 1986 VARIEN, M.D., MILLS, B.J., 1997, Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 141-191. WANDSNIDER, L.A. 1987, Natural Formation Process Experimentation nd Archaeological Analysis. In Natural Formation Processes and the archaeological Record. Edited by D.T.Nash and M.D. Petraglia. Oxford, British archaeological Series S352, pp. 150-185 Vieu,L., 1997, Spatial representation and resoning in AI. In Spatial and temporal Reasoning. Edited by O. Stock. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 3-70.
TOOLEY,M., 1987, Causation. A Realist Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wheeler, J.O., Muller, P.O., Thrall, G.I., Fik, T.J., 1998, Economic Geography John Wiley Publ. London.