| |
|
|
Interpretation
The ultimate point of archaeological fieldwork is to reconstruct the series of events which led to the formation of
the site - the construction, use, destruction or decay of buildings, or the manufacture, use and deposition of
artefacts, for example this allows us to understand the story of human activity at that place over time.
The use of archaeological evidence such as potsherds, burials, building debris, or plant or pollen remains, to
reconstruct land-use, settlement, manufacturing, or funerary practices tells us how humans have used their
environment and resources in the past. The evidence for these may be combined and interpreted to shed light on
lifestyles, diets, technological innovation and types of ritual activity. On an even more abstract level,
archaeologists argue about the relationships between people and groups of people in the past, their motivations for
the types of behaviour which we can see reflected in the archaeology, and their religious or even political beliefs.
Archaeologists are increasingly aware that much of their reasoning and argument about the past is not merely the
description of objective facts, but is a reflection of ideas, models and concepts which lead to a largely
subjective interpretation. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a general view that humans in the past used and
responded to their environments in a measurable way - for example, settlements would always be sited on, or closest
to, the best land and available water, certain levels of soil fertility would support proportionate population
numbers, and that competition for resources always explained warfare. However, in the late 1980s and 1990s an
alternative view arose that human behaviour is more complex and often responds to factors that are cultural and
spiritual, rather than merely environmental or economic. This may show itself as apparently irrational acts visible
in archaeological evidence - for example the deliberate burning down of a newly-constructed building or the
purposeful destruction of a valued and expensive artefact, little practical utility in everyday economic life. As a
result of this re-thinking and questioning of previous approaches and of current interpretative practice, an
awareness of 'Archaeological Theory' is now accepted as the necessary underpinning for any attempt to interpret
evidence for the past.
Return to Evidence.
|
|
|
 |
