Stating what's "understood" in archaeology is just as much an act of interpretation, except you'll be less able to comprehend it as a layperson because it's fil

Stating what's "understood" in archaeology is just as much an act of interpretation, except you'll be less able to comprehend it as a layperson because it's filled with irrelevant details like "sites 1, and 3, and 9 show tree ring dates of 1210, 1360, and 1297, while sites 1a, 2, and 6 show archaeomagnetic dates of 1500, 1678, and 1349 respectively". Imagine that for dozens of kinds of evidence across thousands of sites. It will still be subject to many of the pitfalls of interpretation in how you recognize a site, label a site, excavate it, date it, and so on, but that's basically the "base level" evidence in archeology.