There’s a phrase that comes to mind, from probably a Tom Clancy or Bourne movie/Book - Deniable Plausibility.
Archaeology, by its very nature, is an averaging and a guessing game. Most discoveries contain phrases such as “tend to”, and “appear to be”. It is a difficult sciense, because in the end you cannot dig up every bit of ground in every site for a culture, or even find every places where a certain culture did exist.
A dig can tell you that middens were found in a village, and that there was no evidence that the inhabitants ever ate deer. Chances are they are right - but they may just have missed that one midden in which they buried all of the deer bones, because the deer was a venerated and cultic creature.
I’m working on historical fiction set in the sub roman era. Theories are constantly being revised. I just pick what seems to fit best for my understanding of what I want - I do my best to beware anachronisms, and to get my facts right, but if people disagree about a detail, then perhaps it’s because both are right - in different places, or different families.
If I think it’s reasonable to stick with my guns, or with the thoughts of someone in the field who knows far more than me, but has now been proven wrong on a small point, then that’s what I do. If one archaeologist believed it at some time, it must be at least credible to most people out there.
I think you can only do so much, just so long as you believe it yourself when you write - in the end the truth is greater than the facts, and I think the truth of a tale is more important.
I must admit, though, that that has not stopped me from discovering exactly which hills sat below the constellation of Orion (then known as Lleu Long Arm) at 10 in the evening on the 6th of September 599 from a vantage point just before the Moorfoot Hills south of Edinburgh. (It was a little to the West of Arthur’s Seat in Edinburgh, and a small scattering of meteors appeared from his arm between 10 and 12 that night).