Nevertheless, the tradition of inscribing what are essentially apotropaic marks in churches does suggest that together with the widespread practise of ritual deposition in and around dwellings, it would be rather surprising if some parallel tradition did not exist in respect of houses. There must also be some significance in the repetition of certain marks on houses over a wide area, the same distinct marks appearing in religious contexts over a much wider area. As to whether the marks are supplicatory or manipulative, we can only point to the likely parallel of 'consecration' marks in an ecclesiastical context and these seem to lie somewhere between the two. The elements of counter-witchcraft represented by the paraphernalia of hair, nail clippings, urine, bent pins, heating, etc. In some respects it is easier to interpret the signs than the artefacts of ritual behaviour, especially if in both cases it is in the absence of contemporary written records.
Artefacts have no intrinsic meanings.
The house leek on the roof is just a plant, the bottle up the chimney is just a bottle. They acquire meaning only through context and our attempts to ascribe meaning. Archaeologists are increasingly bedevilled by the problem of interpreting artefacts for which there is no apparent useful purpose. A growing interest in theoretical archaeology has on the one hand opened up a healthy debate about interpretation in general but has thrown open to question virtually every analysis involving ritual or religious interpretations except where there is extant documentation which clearly indicates belief and intent. Merrifield referred rather sceptically to, the heavy mathematical artillery of the New Archaeology , but acknowledged the particular need for objective research in this field.