When we consider the significance of an assemblage from a particular site we are then faced with the problem of placing the assemblage in its wider context. It is natural to try to compare the site's assemblage with those from contemporary sites in the immediate area, and perhaps also further afield, which brings us face to face with the problems of the interpretation of distributional evidence, which may be more complex than is often recognised (Fülle 1997). It may even be possible to identify local means of distribution, such as market-place barter (Abbott et al. 2007).

The last thirty years have seen the widespread adoption of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and associated technologies into archaeology (see, for example, Wheatley and Gillings 2002; Conolly and Lake 2006). This period can be divided into two phases: a simple ‘mapping’ phase, using the technology to produce location and distribution maps faster, and sometimes better, than could be done ‘by hand’. Some practitioners allowed the possibilities to run away with them, and were decried for producing visually attractive ‘pretty pictures’ which did not actually enhance the message that they were trying to convey, and may even in extreme cases have obscured it. The second phase is more analytical, and seeks to interpret rather than just admire the patterns that can readily be produced; the approach sometimes goes by the name of Geographical Information Analysis (GIA) (see O’Sullivan and Unwin 2003). Adoption of this phase has been much slower, for reasons that should become apparent below.