<p>This article is a statement about prehistory as a construct, how that construct has been built up, and what weaknesses it still demonstrates. In particular, I follow David Clarke’s lead in suggesting that having a proper analytical archaeology is the essential prerequisite for interpretation. Drawing on insights from Mary Douglas, Margaret Masterson, Mary Midgley, and Alison Wylie, I argue that interpretive fashion and what are termed ‘pre-theoretical commitments’ present the major dangers in building inferences to the best explanation (IBE). I have used several examples, focusing on the Palaeolithic period in Europe, to show how background assumptions alter perceptions of significance among professional and amateur practitioners as well as the lay public. In brief worked examples I argue specifically for the possibility of alternative explanations in cases where ‘care’ or ‘compassion’ has been claimed as identifiable from burial evidence. The article contains observations on the problematic of behavioural uniformitarianism, the metaphysics of deep time and human evolution, and the importance of direct material engagement.</p>