Ўзбекистон республикаси фанлар академияси

Intra-site studies. 
Although the given archaeological interest for utilization of GIS analytical capabilities in 
excavation research, the intra-site applications have been fragmented in three main interest areas: 
(1) excavation data management, (2) excavation feature representation and (3) spatial analysis of 
excavation finds and structures. The integration of all these three areas in a GIS system, ideally 
could lead to the formation of a functional archaeological excavation information system. In this 
section an approach on the major problematic issues concerning intra-site applications is 
attempted and briefly discussed. A major problem that has hindered the use of GIS in excavation 
practice has been the difficulty to model excavation objects and features in an all-encompassing 
data model with spatial character. Archaeological excavation generates numerous object types 
each with its own set of attributes. 
The classifications made are therefore extensive and difficult to model in conventional 
database systems [14]. Furthermore, they are normally changed or extended during excavation 
procedure or postexcavation study as new data come into light. Updating the database is another 
issue, since the process of archaeological interpretation goes through various stages until 
finalized for publication. Finally, the subjective nature of archaeological description and the 
problems in recording standardization make even more difficult the correlation of archaeological 
information between different excavations or even between trenches [17]. Given the fact that in a 
GIS environment thematic and spatial attributes have to be employed alongside, it is no wonder 
that most excavation management systems proved to be inadequate in the management of 
archaeological information in its totality. 
An archaeological excavation ―is a programme of intrusive fieldwork with defined 
research objectives, which examines, records and interprets archaeological deposits, features and 
structures and, as appropriate, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified 
area or site‖ [3]. 
The vertical orientation of the excavation process implicates the issue of depth (the third 
dimension) with a unique significance in archaeological analysis and interpretation. Following 
this statement, a representation of an excavation in a digital environment should include all three 
dimensions of space. 3D representation of excavation features is even more significant counting 
the fact that archaeological excavation could be regarded as a procedure that involves the 
destruction of past evidence. In this frame, 3D GIS can help the archaeologist visualise objects 
that no longer exist. 
However, most of the current commercial GIS software packages handle spatial data in 
only two dimensions. The approaches, proposed so far for 3D visualization in GIS, present two 
major limitations prohibiting a functional excavation representation: 
• poor graphic results of objects representing spatial entities 
• complicated and time-consuming techniques for the creation of 3D objects Strongly 
related with these issues are the limitations in effectively handling and analyzing the 
archaeological data in 3D space. Although spatial analysis of data in current commercial 2D 
based GIS has been efficient, the task of 3D functionality can be characterized as a complex 
issue due to the lack of supportive GIS theory. GIS functionality aspects such as 3D object 
manipulation, 3D geometry and topology are still not embedded in current GIS systems [23]. 

---

11 
Additional requirements are posed in GIS unctionality, since the investigation of material 
culture transformation through time is one of the primary goals of archaeological research. In 
order to ―depict the history‖ of past structures or phenomena, archaeologists should have in mind 
several significant issues regarding Spatio Temporal Reasoning. Within this frame, an important 
factor refers to changes affecting the spatial characteristics of structures or phenomena. Some 
possible alterations of an archaeological feature or structure that could be met within this domain 
include functions such as its appearance or disappearance, increase or decrease, movement or 
boundary shifts. Changes may also refer to transformations that affect the thematic attributes of 
an object [2]. Giving a simple example, the transformation of Tate Modern to a museum from an 
industrial building, did not affect its geometric attributes but, on the other hand, altered 
significantly its character. The translation of all these concepts within a database framework as 
well as the exploration of new methodologies forvisual representation of archaeological feature 
―change‖, are currently missing from archaeological intra-site GIS approaches.