<HTML>100% agreement in real world applications, Mikey.
I am far more concerned with pure theory here, though.
From a strictly theoretical standpoint, frankly, the sciences are crossing INTO archaeology in order to help archaeology with it's assembly of the puzzle. These are not part of the archaeological science, itself.
And John is right about the jet nose-diving. You could get the same thing with a burial site, too. In these cases, his contemporaneous contextual evidence is paramount... but only in that it helps to create the sequence... not in that it changes the measurements.
In my opinion, the logical sequence (theoretically) IS the whole thing in archaeology. Everything else is simply support science.
Anthony</HTML>