Does proper context change how you interpret an artifact? My mentor made me rethink everything.
I was working on a dig in southern New Mexico last summer, and we found this cool obsidian blade. My first thought was it looked like a simple cutting tool, like everyone says. But my mentor, Dr. Reyes, pointed out it was buried right next to a fire pit with rabbit bones, and the wear marks suggested it was used for scraping hides, not slicing meat. She said I was seeing what I expected, not what the data showed. That critique hit hard, and now I always look at soil layers and associated finds before jumping to a label. It changed how I catalog everything, even common items like pottery sherds. Has a specific piece of feedback ever totally shifted your view of a find?