[David Hohl]

Sorry if I was unclear. I certainly don't want to discount archaeology. I was just trying to point out that in archaeology, like in other sciences, our findings are almost never absolute and indisputable. Instead, we just use the information available to us to understand things as best we can. Archaeology relies on the damaged and scattered surviving remnants of the past, so it's no surprise if we miss something because of misleading surviving evidence, and it's not the fault of the science or the scientists. Despite this archaeology is by far one of the best methods existing for understanding the past.

[Andrew W]

[Dan Howard]

Isotopic analysis was done on the teeth of the skeletons found on the Mary Rose and a majority of the crew did not come from the British Isles. IIRC most of them were southern European in origin. If that is true, and we assume that southern Europeans were not longbowmen, then most of the bows found on the ship were not intended for the crew but were being transported somewhere else.

[William P]

one question, does the interpretation of things like effigies and brasses come under historian work or archaeology?

and one benefit of archaeology particularly in our circles as sword nuts and reenactors. archaeology will tell uswhat things actually looked like and what they were made of texts usually dont go ino those sorts of things.
for example theres the thread about celtic sword blades we have witten records of swords being bent on the first hit, yet weve found in archaeology several celtic swords that were more than above par which makes us question the whole truthfullness of these writings, in the same manner, in artwork we sometimes see swords cleaving through helmets but analysis, reconstruction and testing of helmets found in archaeology shows this was most likely artistic liscence
or just some really really badly made helmets

to name a couple of examples.

although i realize reconstructing weapons is a very small portion of archaeology and historical works.

another thing is that its been in archaeological digs that weve FOUND many sources of art and writing, like the numerous pieces of ostraka with writing on them in greece rome and egypt which tell of the more intricate details of peoples habits.

[José-Manuel Benito]

Hi, again.

Any serious project, not only on research, also on innovation, on experimentation or on manufacturing, there will work with teams of people who perform specialized tasks. In general, any major work can have a visible head, a director, but behind has to be a vital team of specialists in several fields, as necessary.

Logically, this also happens in archeology. The director does not have to know about everything, not necessarily is an archaeologist. Even, it can have several directors coordinated.

Behind, there is a system of researchers prepared to solve very different problems: philologists, as mentioned by E. Storesund, but we also have paleontologists, geologists, palynologists, anthropologists, metallurgists, statisticians, artists, geographers, climatologists, historians of art, atomic physicists ... the list can get quite long.

If the teams are small and modest, because it almost never can have as many means, the team has support from public or private institutions that give diverse guidance and provides their own equipment (universities, museums, private people, sponsors ...).

They often collaborate several universities of several countries, each contributing with their people ...

The archaeologist or, rather, the director of the archaeological excavation, should know who to ask for help to take full advantage of the data.

You can take the example of Staffordshire Hoard, and how, from an amateur detectorist, there has been adding people, institutions, and countries, who could provide its expertise in many fields of research, some of the people who have been involved in the project are in this forum and, perhaps, many of you know them.

The Staffordshire Hoard is an excellent example of a discovery whose enormous archaeological importance is only an anecdote on the main historiographical streams.

Regards