Is the customary word "data" a good name for archaeological records and facts? "Data" means the things that are "given," but archaeological observations and facts are never given at all. Rather, they are captured by the researcher, who seeks to grasp from the material record the essentials of some complex and little-known phenomenon, often remote in time and usually ambiguous in material expression. We should prefer to use the better word "capta," the things that have been captured, and to realize that this word captures the essence of what we do.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher Chippindale (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: