Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)
closed access
While methodological examinations and evaluations on post-depositional processes, sampling, surface collection, the definition of ‘site’ and other phenomena in intensive and extensive surveys...Show moreWhile methodological examinations and evaluations on post-depositional processes, sampling, surface collection, the definition of ‘site’ and other phenomena in intensive and extensive surveys already came to the fore in the 1980s, less theoretical and methodological attention seems to be given to the archaeological process that takes place from the collection of the finds on the surface to the modes of archaeological interpretation. Although ceramological analyses often play a large role in reconstructing the past, especially in survey archaeology, the capabilities of the ceramologist in the ascription of chronology, function and provenance are often limited, resulting in a dataset that consists of data on various resolutions. In this light, a certain tension between our aim, providing a detailed reconstruction of the past, and our actual capabilities has to be acknowledged. These data, however, are the data we have to work with. This thesis explores the limits of our capabilities and dataset by applying a wide range of distributive and quantitative methods from a chronological and functional point of view. Although the survey data appear to be often biased to some extent, each of the applied methods is also fundamentally biased and is giving its own character to the dataset under examination. In this light, it should be stressed that the ‘source criticism’, which is often argued for in research, should be accompanied by a certain ‘instrumental criticism’. What seems to be apparent on the basis of the methodological exercises that are carried out in this thesis is a clear need to examine the archaeological record on the surface in its own right and context, as some of the methods applied clearly gave a different character to our own dataset when compared to the datasets of, for instance, the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey and Sagalassos. In this light, the complexity of the formation of the archaeological record and even our own datasets should be acknowledged and a wide range of quantitative and distributive methods should be carried out in further research to comparatively examine and evaluate the complexity we encounter from the ‘raw’ data revealed by archaeology.Show less
