ABSTRACT
From archaeology the historian may expect information about the material aspects of life, about the economic arrangements of a people, their houses and villages, their implements and weapons, their skills and crafts, their food supply, and their control over natural resources. Inscriptions on stones and coins are sometimes regarded as archaeological evidence, but by the above definition they are historical evidence. The advantages offered by approaches through archaeology and the study of place-names, independently or in co-ordination, apply to all periods of history, but their impact is greatest in the Dark Ages. The inter-disciplinary distrusts arise from and reflect an accumulation of differences which separate history, archaeology, and philology. The fundamental fact is that historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and linguistic evidence are essentially different in character. Place-names are essentially linguistic evidence. And, like archaeological and historical evidence, the evidence of place-names can be misinterpreted.
