Archaeological evidence still must be interpreted. For example a if a bronze sword is found in a field, it is only evidence to the fact there was a bronze sword in that field, nothing more. One archaeologist could interptret there was a military camp there, a second a lone walker accidently dropped it, a third it was hidden by a thief to pick up later and a fourth an army marched by.
Archaeology is fundementally evidence and interpretation, this is what they teach you at university and ligitimate archaeology is always being conscious of what is evidence and what intepretation. Pseudo archaeology is built on crossing the line and using interpretation as evidence, it's what it's built on, that andthe basis people who believe pseudo archaeologists are not trained in distinguishing evidence from interpretation at all times.
Now later on evidence may emerge there was a battle near where the bronze age sword was found. It now could be interpreted that it is the sword of a dead soldier, or the sword of a soldier who ran away, or fell off a cart on the way to the battle. Then again it could be unconnected to the battle at all. These are all still interpretations, just the new evidence means some are now more likely than others. As new evidence emerges some interpretations become more and more likely, but it's rare to categorically prove something in archaeology. Just what would it take to completely prove that sword was used in that battle?
Edited by Toltec - 30-May-2012 at 09:25