Why is archaeological evidence more uncertain than written records for studying early Anatolian religion?

For the study of early Anatolian religion, archaeological evidence is considered more uncertain than written records because it consists of "inarticulate data"—such as isolated finds, statues, and architectural remains—that lack explicit context. While written archives, like those discovered at Boğazköy, provide direct, indigenous literary evidence of religious beliefs, rituals, and myths, archaeological remains require interpretation, which introduces a significant element of uncertainty.1

Scholars often must rely on these scarce, nonliterary remains for periods predating the availability of written records. To make sense of these findings, researchers frequently interpret them in light of later historical periods or cultural survivals, a process that requires great critical acumen to avoid anachronisms. Without the explicit explanations found in texts, it is difficult to definitively determine the meaning or function of ancient artifacts, such as whether a specific figurine represents a deity or a human, or how a particular structure was utilized in religious practice. Consequently, while archaeology provides essential physical evidence, it remains less precise than the detailed, firsthand accounts preserved in ancient inscriptions.1234