Archaeological evidence is not just a stele, piece of pottery or foundation of an ancient building. It is also provenance, context and analysis.
Provenance includes evidence of the exact location where a find was made, with its removal preferably witnessed by reliable persons. This is particularly important for Near Eastern finds, because of the potential monetary value and the opportunity for religiously inspired misrepresentation. Knowing the exact location of the find enables archaeologists to place it in context with other finds in terms of age and influence. Much more can be ascertained by looking at sherds of pottery in situ than by looking at the same material displayed in a museum.
Analysis can include carbon dating, microscopic, ultra-morphological, chemical, mineralogical or microbiological analysis. Paleographers can date the letters in an inscription by their shape, while language experts can provide an opinion on whether the language is appropriate for the time at which the object is otherwise dated.
The flip side of archaeological evidence is archaeological fraud. Professor Eric Meyers of Duke University said, "Estimates are running as high as 30 or 40 percent of all inscribed materials in the Israel Museum [in Jerusalem] have been forged."
answers.com should know the answer for this thats why i am asking answers.com that question.
historical evidence suggests this theory. The war was Historical.
It isn’t sure they did. In fact, new historical evidence points to the possibility that they lived with them. They had a village down river from the colony and recent historical evidence has found English items in the village and evidence they were living with them.
These historical documents are of extreme importance.This is a historical site.
There is no historical evidence that she was mean spirited.
textbook
Corroborated sources of historical evidence. (APEX) !/
what is the historical evidence for the foundation of rome
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
There is no historical evidence of that nature.
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
Historical synthesis is the process an historian engages in to transform evidence into a final historical account (O'Brien, 1935)
There is no direct evidence of historical navel piercing, although there is a great deal of historical evidence regarding the decoration of the navel, both for ritual and aesthetic purposes.
historical evidence suggests this theory. The war was Historical.
Historical evidence.
It isn’t sure they did. In fact, new historical evidence points to the possibility that they lived with them. They had a village down river from the colony and recent historical evidence has found English items in the village and evidence they were living with them.
Only if the historical details are genuine. What usually happens with frauds is that they slip up in the setting in which they place people. They include details which do not belong in that particular historical setting or they include something which is out of place. Similarly, when there is no evidence of the existence of a particular person, this does not at all mean that a person or some detail is not historical. There are numerous examples where the Bible was thought to be in error historically where it has been verified. Thus 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
These historical documents are of extreme importance.This is a historical site.