This document discusses the debate around whether archaeology can be considered a true science. It summarizes perspectives from both sides of the debate. Those who argue archaeology is not a science point to issues like the inability to repeat excavations and inherent biases in interpretation. Supporters argue that archaeology uses the scientific method and can generate testable theories. The author believes the arguments against archaeology as a science are more well-supported due to stronger theoretical foundations. However, the author also thinks employing scientific strategies is important for developing archaeology further.

1. Uri A. Grunder
Capstone – March 8th, 2013
Position Paper
Science and Archaeology
A hot topic brought up at least since the forming of Lewis Binford’s New Archaeology is
whether or not Archaeology can be considered a true science. The majority of contemporary
information that I have uncovered seems to be an analysis of the New Archaeology though I
submit that similar points can be made of all of Archaeology and not just the latest and greatest
framework. Three focal points of debate consistently crop up in the discussion of Archaeology as
a science: the first is adamant resistance to endowing archaeology knighthood in the round table
of sciences, the second is the lack of interest in a debate over the labeling of archaeology, and the
last is devout belief that archaeology is a science. These perspectives permeate not only the
minds of archaeological and non-archaeological debaters in the profession realm of science (or
non-science) but also the minds of the public.
Generally this topic is debated amongst professionals through documented theoretical
responses, publications, and presentations at various archaeological/anthropological/ or other
archaeologically related venues – like hard science venues discussing the scientific validity of
archaeology. In summary the process would start by a submission of a document or a
presentation or a statement during the mingling between presentations about a person’s particular
view on why archaeology is/is not a science which then becomes a published response backed by
theoretical and logical reasoning. A debate ensues as other parties respond to the initial
submission with publishings of their own and so it goes until the issue is smashed into the realms

2. of ambiguity or collective agreement. An example would be the theoretical response to Watson,
Le Blanc, and Redman (WLR) by Charels Morgan in his article titled Explanation and Scientific
Archaeology where arguments published by WLRwere openly contested. While these are
professional(ish) papers they are very much filled with heat, sarcasm, and even hostility.
Public debate by contrast tends to be in a series of short blurbs of responses to a general
question posted on a public forum. The same magnitudes of treatment can be seen from
professional(ish) debate to hostile and aggressive assertions.However, statements are often made
without thorough theoretical backing and tend to rely on more common sense deductions. An
example to be later used was an article/ blurb that was posted, blog style, on a public server that
described why Archaeology was not a science in about 5 paragraphs each paragraph explaining
new evidence. This was open to public response who responded often with fewer words but with
more individual responses. Both public forums and more theoretically/academically published
debate venues will be explored.
The first focal point to be explored is the belief that Archaeology is not a science. On the
public forum this was viewed in a simple checklist manner. Hirst in his/her article/blog Top Five
Reasons Why Archaeology is Not a Science suggested five basic points that rule out archaeology
as a science. The number one reason being that archaeological excavations and methods
inherently cannot be repeated in a controlled and scientific manner ensuring that theories can be
tested by other interested parties. This was linked to the fact that no two excavated sites are
exactly the same and that methodologies must be altered to account for differences in
topography, soil types, or other environmental or research reasons. The second is that
archaeological materials recovered from excavation retain an inherently diminished integrity
which is impacted by depositional, post-depositions (site-forming), excavation and processing,

3. and lab analysis influences which tarnish the ability to produce empirical results. The third was
that archaeology focuses too much on data interpretation which skews the results to the biases of
the researcher. The fourth is that archaeology is a sub-section of anthropology, a social science
and therefore is not a science and the fifth is that archaeology is more artistic and interesting
rather than dull and empirical like science.
Public responses to this that fell amongst agreement suggested that although archaeology
employs the use of the scientific method the actual interpretation of material data to reconstruct
cultural pasts is just too far of a leap to be considered a science. While these assertions that
archaeology is not a science are short, sweet, and to the point they do lack a little logical or
theoretical foundation more relying on the obviousness of the statement. However, in a other
published documents contributing to the academic/professional debate the same matters are
being brought up. For instance, Robert Dunnell agrees with Hirst’s statement of archaeology not
being a science so long as it is associated with anthropology. However, Dunnell fleshes out his
argument by defining in particular the sense making framework of archaeology and how it
compares to other sciences.
Dunnell discusses science as retaining two consistent aspects: empirical data and
fundamental theory that can be tested. He states that in general, there are two different science
frameworks: time-like and space-like (Dunnell page 8). Space-like is a mode of science
determined to explain how a phenomenon works using units of measurement or definition that
are independent of time. This is what most sciences are framed as with physics being the
pinnacle of the space-like framework. Time-like frameworks, by contrast, are framed more
towards explaining how things occur or why they occur. The units of measurement or definition
utilized with time-like frameworks are different from space-like units in that they are time reliant

4. rather than independent of time. This inconsistency is neither bad nor good but must be
accounted for by a different system of understanding that can create good empirical
generalizations that don’t get too patchy when taking a more localized or specific look at the
overall data. Dunnell claims that archaeology is a time-like discipline which is concerned
withidentifying cultural and behavioral alteration through time. Although archaeology is asking
to answer why culture changes through time it is blindly borrowing space-like techniques that
answer how things change through time. This muddling of techniques and frameworks cannot
yield accurate or reliable scientific results. As long as archaeology therefore, according to
Dunnell, either create a new system of units of meaning which can compensate for its time
dependency or analyze its internal goal and determine if that fundamental goal should be
scrutinized and changed.
Another point that Dunnell touched on was the prevalence of bias in archaeology and its
permeation into data interpretation. He suggests that Archaeology works by employing three
separate systems of sense making: science, social science, and common sense. Science is utilized
by groping at space-like techniques – as mentioned earlier – this use of empirical data however is
not coupled with integral theory but is used to generate theory by logical deduction or at least a
reflection of it based in our common sense or biases. Dunnell points out that in science, theory is
tested and refined over time with the constant flux of empirical data however archaeology is
generally scooping up data for analysis and inferring theories as a byproduct that exists with that
particular data set and is not often representative of a more general outlook. Archaeology’s link
with social science refers to its claim to explain human behavior in an empirical sense and that
while attempts in the past have been attempted to create a science based on the human subject it
has utterly failed to be authenticated as such may be the case for archaeology.

5. On the flip side, there are some who believe that archaeology is rightfully a science. On a
more public forum responses supporting that archaeology was a science were seen as responses
to Hirst’s article/blog. Some of the reasons for it were that a discipline was a science if it utilized
the scientific method. More specifically, any discipline that used the scientific method to extract
theoretical conclusions from material evidence was a science. This not only spills into the way in
which conclusions are drawn from material remains but also the way in which archaeological
methods are developed to obtain those material remains. In a less public but not quite academic
publication/ article by an anonymous source titled What is Science in all of this and How is
Archaeology a Science the author suggests that science itself is not as hard as it claims to be.
He/she suggests that science operates as a human mechanism and is subject to the same biases
and impurity that is often augmented upon archaeology. They submit that principles such as
Occam’s razor and the “doctrine of uniformity” make science more of a religion-like mechanism
used to most effectively describe the world around us at the particular time of theoretical
development (paragraph 4). This author also promotes the idea that archaeology works on the
same fronts as science in the regard previously mentioned which conforms to critiques met in the
non-science believers while reflecting upon a more humane definition of how science works on
the ground. This author may also promote archaeology as being more than science in that good
archaeological practice, practices cultural relativism which identifies and neutralizes human bias.
In a publication by K. Feder as part of the Chronika Graduate Journal, archaeology was
promoted as a science by demystifying archaeology on television and bad archaeology as
pseudo-science. I believe that this article was more geared towards shutting down unscientific
and/or false venues or archaeological methods and interpretation though; I contend that the
unconscious or conscious assumption was that archaeology was already rooted in science. This

6. trend that asserts archaeology as a science without actually providing theoretical backup for the
original assertion seems common in many publications. For instance, in D. Randall-MacIver’s
work Archaeology as a Science the article never mentions how exactly archaeology is a science
aside from having credible students that graduated from scientific institutions and are practicing
scientific methods. Rather, the focus of the article was how the pure science of archaeology and
its necessary publications are perverted by museums, organizations, and private funders
demanding trinkets of social value rather than funding archaeological expeditions for the sake of
scientific knowledge. This perversion is what is causing people to believe archaeology being
non-scientific not that archaeology may actually be non-scientific.
The third main belief in this debate is one of no interest or at least interest in displaying
how one should be uninterested in how archaeology is labeled. As a response to Hirst, A. Brar
suggests that archaeology does not need to be labeled as a science to contribute to our
understanding of ourselves and our past. This is shared by C.G. Morgan in his more hostile
publication Explanation and Scientific Archaeology. Both contend that scientific method may be
a means of improving the accuracy and detail of understanding in archaeological issues and that
borrowing from other sciences is beneficial. Morgan expresses that the analysis of archaeology
as a science and the hot debate, that he does not hold back from participating in, is a waste of
time because so much energy goes into debating with each other but no conclusion drawn in
favor of either party will actually contribute to our current knowledge-base of our human past.
My personal opinions regarding the view against archaeology as a science is that the
argument is very well put together. While Hirst’s article I found less than satisfactory because
many of its categories are too subjective, incomplete, or simply incoherent – such as
distinguishing archaeology from science because it is interesting where science is not –I

7. appreciated Dunnell professionalism in drawing out his points and I found his arguments to
touch on many of what Hirst was attempting to get across. Not only are there by far more points
of doubt that are brought up but these points are backed up by more solid theoretical foundations
that shade the arguments into a much more comprehensive standpoint.
In contrast to this, I felt as though the debaters advocating for archaeology as a science
were lacking to say the least. I was disappointed to find so few academic/professional
publications taking this stand and even more so was the lack of actual argument. With Randall-
MacIver, the anonymous writer, and Feder they all seem to be missing the theoretical foundation
that colors their stance and instead seem to take archaeology as a science for granted. While it
was not pointed out in a published document, the anonymous writer took an interesting stance by
pointing out the fallacies and humanity of science and how it works as a human mechanism,
which in my opinion does actually even out the playing field of the debate. However, the lack of
evidence and theoretical grounding made this good point stuck in still water and a little too weak.
In reflection, it may be that my initial research was faulty and I simply missed the good,
professionally published articles that charge at this issue with solid grounding. Another thought
may be that the reason why there are no significant rebuttals may be because those who believe
that archaeology is a science are too busy employing scientific methods to contribute to
furthering our understanding of the human past rather than getting hot headed in a ridiculous
debate.
As a student and practicing archaeologist myself, I’d like to think that I gravitate more
towards the party who is less concerned about whether archaeology is a science or not and more
concerned with how to create and participate in a logical and scientific research proposal to help
further our knowledge-base. I agree with Morgan in that too much time is wasted in trying to

8. quantify that scientific-ness of archaeology and if this kind of effort was put into furthering
archaeology maybe it could evolve into a framework that wouldn’t be debated so hotly.
However, as it stands I agree with Dunnell in that archaeology is lacking in terms of necessary
scientific attributes. I think that there is too much interpretation and not enough scientific
exploration. For example, during my visit to a field school in Oregon I learned that the group
was attempting to prove that one lithic typology actually predated another lithic typology, which
was contrary to contemporary belief. I feel as though this objective is already at fault because
generalizations by typologies alone constructed and labeled by our contemporary society cannot
account for individual or localized group manufacturing preferences who initially deposited
those artifacts.
Instead, I contend that a stronger generalization should be drawn from the matrix of soil
surrounding the artifact/typology in question. Integration of physical science, specifically
Geoarchaeology, could be utilized to understand how the site may have been affected by other
natural processes that may have displaced artifacts and altered the natural/anthropomorphic
landscape (Rapp). This effort could be coupled with dating materials found in association with
each artifact to create an actual temporal generalization and apply this method throughout the
region to then create a more empirical generalization rather than rely on the our constructed
labels to promote our ideas. While the scientific labelfor archaeology matters little to me, I do
see value in sticking to the scientific method. I see Archaeology as a type of Omni-ology in
which all scientific and non-scientific principles should be examined and understood to start
getting real answers about our complex human past.
In concluding thoughts, I cannot readily choose a distinct ground in this debate. I see
contemporary archaeology as not being an exact science, generally in consensus with Dennell.

9. However, I do believe that the employment of scientific strategies as being crucial to the
discipline of archaeology and necessary to its development. I contend that the employment of
principles and methods of other sciences – Geoarchaeology, zooarcaheology, ect. – count for
something and I may agree that a solid definition of science may only exist in the minds of the
scientific community and that it may be that science is not as empirical as it claims to be. In the
end however, I believe that it doesn’t really matter whether archaeology is accepted as a science
by which ever community because cultural labels for all things change so quickly and the realm
of archaeology may be taken to a whole new place in a few short years to come.

10. References
Readers Respond: Archaeology is (or is not) a Science because... (2013). Retrieved March 8,
2013, from About.comArchaeology: http://archaeology.about.com/u/ua/controversies/Is-
Archaeology-a-Science.htm
Dunnell, R. (1982). The Harvey Lecture Series. Science, Social Science, and Common Sense:
The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research,
1-25.
Hirst, K. (2013). Top Five Reasons Archaeology is Not a Science. Retrieved March 8, 2013,
from About.comArchaeology: http://archaeology.about.com/od/controversies/tp/Top-
Five-Reasons-Archaeology-Is-Not-A-Science.htm
Morgan, C. (1974). Explanation and Scientific Archaeology. World Archaeology, 133-137.
Randall-MacIver, D. (1933). Archaeology as a Science. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 120-
124.
Rapp, G. (1998). Geoarcaheology: The Earth Science Approach to Arcaheological
Interpretation. Yale University.
What is all of this and How is Archaeology a Science. (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/archaeology/science.html