repeating this from an older post, just cause I thought it deserved it
An interpretation is not an explanation, and explanations of particular points fail as interprtation. An interpretation is a response, as strong or weak as the cumulative coaborating evidence. Being 'right' or 'wrong' has little or no bearing here. What matters is the constellation of interpretive points, how rich and suggestive that network of associations. In a constellation, meaning doesn't arise from the particular points , but in how the lines are drawn from point to point. New interpretations arise by redrawing the connecting lines.