eTheses Repository - University of Birmingham

evidence was also recorded, in order for it to be classified and render it usable: Was the
evidence structural, for example walls, houses or tombs; was it in the form of sherds, lithics,
or metal, or a mixture of one or more of these? The quantity was also important in the
classification process, as were the characteristics of each ‘class’, for example whether the
pottery was in the form of miniatures, sherds or complete pots.
Many authors had also openly interpreted the evidence, albeit some more convincingly than
others and these interpretations were particularly interesting. How and on what basis had they
been made? Many of these interpretations were based on the presence of evidence from other
periods, in addition to knowledge of the landscape, the setting of the sites themselves and on
what could be called intuition or a subjective experience. Although the interpretations of the
sites can and must be questioned, they are judged as a valid way of considering the evidence.
This prompted the decision to include two site-type fields within the database: an ‘objective’
type based on strict definitions and a more ‘interpretive’ type. However, this is not to imply
that the ‘objective’ type is without bias or essentially without meaning ascribed to it. This is
not the case. It is merely an attempt to limit the level of explicit explanation. The
classifications could have gone a number of different ways and a multitude of combinations
could have been considered. These would have held different meanings for me and everyone
else. Describing a site as a scatter or a findspot does not reduce its meaning. It may give it an
alternative meaning from that if it were described as a settlement - one is clearly more
comprehensible, especially to those outside archaeology, but a scatter still has meaning for the
layperson even if it is a feeling of alienation, a non-understanding. Referring back to
Thomas’ arguments, interpretation is not just something that we do (alongside other things), it
is what we are (Thomas 2001b; Heidegger 1996, p.141; also Gadamer 1975, p.235).
However, by reducing explanation to something that is quantifiable, for example number of
sherds, and to the barest description, for example ‘findspot’ or ‘scatter’, there is the
67