From sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, the interpretation of portable antiquities can be seen as a complex interplay of factors, which are of varying importance around the country. The constraints on data collection and the nature of the PAS database may even give the appearance that little useful information can be gleaned from its analysis. However, it was clearly shown in sections 2.4.2 and 2.5 that aspects of the historic landscape, as well as trends in the use of material culture, could be seen with some confidence. Major features such as the fenland around the Wash, and the Weald are obvious examples and aspects of their evolution can be traced quite simply. The power of these datasets, however, can only be appreciated when they are used in conjunction with other evidence, and changing patterns of distribution over time are not necessarily related to modern recovery. The high incidence of Early Medieval material on the Lincolnshire Wolds, as opposed to the Roman records, for instance, can only be interpreted within the framework of the evolution of the coastal networks of the North Sea littoral; the lack of Roman material from eastern Norfolk can be related to the known distribution of villas; and the changing distributions in the south-west are most likely related to changing economic cycles and the increasing marginality of the peninsula.
A final important point that must be addressed is the relationship between portable antiquities and settlement. At a purely landscape level, the distributions produced from these datasets provide a mixed picture of losses both casual and deliberate, and from a range of activities. Deliberate deposition may be in the form of hoarding, which may or may not be apparent to the finder; or from burial contexts, about which we can be confident for some periods and objects, such as in the Early Anglo-Saxon period. Casual losses may be from within or outside settlements or meeting places; or may represent manuring on fields. It may be impossible in many cases to be certain of what type of deposit we are actually looking at, although often the distinction between assemblages produced through burial and everyday activity might be discerned. At a deeper, cultural and socio-economic level the datasets provide a major insight into a number of interacting factors. It was noted above that the distributions of portable antiquities do not always follow densities of settlement and reveal a mixture of attitudes to material culture, the availability of materials, access to communication routes, and the nature of economic organisation. Separation of these may be possible with reference to our underlying archaeological understanding of different regions. However, it is certain that these datasets provide a massive opportunity for furthering our knowledge on all of these fronts.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/2.6.3.html
Last updated: Tues Apr 21 2009