Kostas wrote to John Wood (I believe this was sent direct to John Wood, not the list, since it doesn't seem to be in the Britarch archive):
> I have misgivings about "stratigraphy". The notion "deeper is older" can be
> challenged. And dating by C14 or other radiometric methods can be
> misleading. Since this assumes the age of everything in the same strata is
> the same.
Sorry, Kostas, if you really believe that the notion "deeper is older" is a fair description of how stratigraphy works, then you're sadly out of touch with real archaeology. For example, try googling "Harris Matrix" - you'll find it on Wikipedia - it's been around for forty years or so. Archaeologists aren't as simple-minded as you seem to think. They've been worrying about things like the dating and sequence of archaeological contexts for many years - and continue to do so.
I've been looking recently at a large group of finds from a single archaeological context. The intrinsically datable objects like coins are consistently 50 or 60 years older than the date (from external evidence) of the context they were found in. I think we know why - can put forward a reasonable scenario that would explain the anomaly (an 'interpretation of the facts' in your terms). But an implication of that interpretation is that we have to date the bulk of the intrinsically-UNdatable finds (small finds, metalwork etc) according to the coin evidence, NOT by the dendrochronological (and documentary) date of the structure they relate to. So one can't in this case use the finds to date the site, nor vice versa. (One might of course try to come up with an alternative interpretation, which would conclude that while the coins were two generations old everything else was brand new.)
You also wrote earlier
>The first ("what you see") is what I have called 'indisputable facts on the ground'. While the second ("what you think you see") I have called 'interpretations of the facts'<
Again your vision of archaeological reasoning seems simplistic. There's a lot of grey area between 'facts on the ground' and 'interpretations of the facts' and many hierarchical levels of 'interpretation'. One might even dispute whether there can be any 'facts' without interpretation. And certainly 'what you see' is NOT a fact - it depends on who and what 'you' are, and is already an interpretation.
If you wish to discuss, Kostas, please respond to the List not direct to me.