However, the static condition of spatial **data** or the stasis created by maps produces situations of simultaneous totalities. Consequently spatial **data** and spatial analysis are criticised, because they assume a synchronicity that sits uneasily with time as developmental process. Galinié et al. (2004), Lefebvre (2009), andRodier et al. (2009) have developed an archaeologically and historically dynamic model of information on urban fabric as an alternative to the more pervasive time-sliced (a particular or aggregate moment in time) representation, called OH_FET (based on 'historical objects'). Such approach relies heavily on the equal availability of archaeological and historical dating evidence across areas of space. In practice it is not only unusual to have equivalent dating evidence for all archaeological evidence of an area of built environment, but it is also difficult to account for the states, conditions, and iterations of persisting elements within the built environment. This is especially true when modelling 'historical objects' based on combinations of social use, space, and time (Rodier et al. 2009;Lefebvre 2009). Spatial analysis assumes the input dataset is synchronous. In contrast, analysing dynamically modelled spatial **data** runs the risk of 'fetishising' the formation processes of archaeological evidence instead of (social) developmental processes. However, the difficulty of incorporating temporal dynamics into spatial built environment **data** should not be an excuse for uncritical use of a synchronous mode of analysis.