Quote Originally Posted by Moros View Post
First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.
Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?