Absolutely! I recall going on a hike with a botanical colleague. It was as if we were in two different universes. She kept remarking on all the remarkable plants, overlooking the abundant and obvious archeology everywhere, while i was trying to peer through the botanical biofouling to get to the good stuff on the ground.
At one point I directed a project in northern Arizona that excavated a marvelously well preserved dwelling in Canyon de Chelly. We retrieved hordes of exquisitely well preserved plant materials and naturally staffed up with botanists to study the material. At one point I had as many botanists as archaeologists working on this material. The intensive botanical studies paid off immensely, in terms of both archaeological knowledge and information about the local botany and its condition. But in many ways we were like two different tribes, speaking different languages. Fortunately we did manage to communicate.
But for many purposes, a pine tree is just a pine tree. By the same token, an arrowhead can be just an arrowhead. In both fields, there is such a thing as over-analysis, but that is something that is only seen in hindsight.