11th May 2007, 02:13 PM
I'm aware that some historians scoff at archaeology - or more specifically - at archaeological interpretations of a site/event etc. I make a lot of use of archaeological reports without fully understanding the process that leads to conclusions. However, they've thrown up some real surprises for me, sometimes contradicting historical evidence or assumptions. Naturally, I've taken them seriously, but more traditional historians insist I disregard archaeology as it's not 'real' history. I think the phrase was, "You're reading far too much into it". The belief being that arkies take something almost insignificant and recreate an entire community from it, or whatever. Oh well, I'll keep fighting...