It's a constant, "What is ...?" but in archaeology the interpretation, the overall picture of the site, within it's landscape, both physical and social, is usually more relevant than individual items.
Those items, the artefacts that are found in secure context, are the crucial to the interpretation. Once they are excavated and recorded, then other folks, perhaps specialists in agriculture to follow your example, may be brought in to give their opinion. It's funny how amorphous bits of work worn timbers turn out to be something important.
This is why there can be such conflict with metal detectorists; they preferentially remove metal items from context without recording them in a way that can be used by anyone investigating the site.
Good detectorists know what they're looking at, they generally understand the site/ landscape at least as well as many archaeologists, but those folks are I have to say, very much in the minority still.
cheers,
Toddy
Those items, the artefacts that are found in secure context, are the crucial to the interpretation. Once they are excavated and recorded, then other folks, perhaps specialists in agriculture to follow your example, may be brought in to give their opinion. It's funny how amorphous bits of work worn timbers turn out to be something important.
This is why there can be such conflict with metal detectorists; they preferentially remove metal items from context without recording them in a way that can be used by anyone investigating the site.
Good detectorists know what they're looking at, they generally understand the site/ landscape at least as well as many archaeologists, but those folks are I have to say, very much in the minority still.
cheers,
Toddy