Why is archaeology a science

Some specialists develop new methods and exploratory projects whereas others prefer the use of more established techniques that may demand less scientific background, or specialise in the computer-based modelling and analysis of data generated by others. Many archaeological scientists involve experimentation too, from small-scale laboratory tests to full-blown reconstructions of ancient technologies. Archaeological scientists at Cambridge come from all kinds of backgrounds: from biology and physics through to archaeology and classics.

They all share an interest in finding synergies and solving puzzles, fully aware that some of the parts may have been lost along the way, and that collaborative teams are essential to use our knowledge to its full potential.

This is also reflected in our student cohorts, including students with a wide range of interests and skill-sets that often learn from each other as much as from their teachers. We teach archaeological science at undergraduate level but also through our specialist MPhil in Archaeological Science and PhD programmes.

Archaeological science at Cambridge works in concert with other branches of the discipline, both within Cambridge and through an extended network on national and international collaborations.

We advocate the integrated use of relevant scientific methods often combining organic and inorganic materials in order to enrich archaeological interpretation from single objects, to site contexts, societies and their global connections.

For instance:. Archaeological science trains you to apply scientific methods and tools to remarkable materials from our past. You will be taught the need to understand fundamental mechanisms, interpret generated data and be aware of how these can be distorted or overprinted by subsequent processes and in some cases conservation treatment. You will enhance your skills in reading and critical thinking.

A modern archaeological project often begins with a survey. Regional survey is the attempt to systematically locate previously unknown sites in a region. Each of these two goals may be accomplished with largely the same methods. Related Stories. Yet archaeology in the new Protocells are vesicles bounded by a membrane That's according to a study published in Nature, which helps answer a long standing question about what happens to tectonic An international team of scientists The diversity of dinosaurs in the Early Cretaceous of the UK is much This debate has raged long, and has been hard fought, in twentieth century archaeology.

That it has continued for such a long time, with such vigour, seems to show that this is an important issue to archaeologists. The reasons for its importance are complex, but include questions of research direction, methodology, disciplinary identity, prestige and, of course, as Anderson points out, funding. Why does it matter whether archaeology is classified as an art, a science, or something different?

A simple answer is that the procedure of archaeology, upon which its findings depend, is a product of its self-image. This is because what is considered admissible as evidence, method, and reasoning and the scope and purpose of archaeology that lead to specific questions being examined is a reflection of what archaeologists believe that they are doing.

This derives from the emergence of a school of thought proposing that the subject can only proceed in an entirely subjective way, its interpretations untestable. This is in drastic contrast to the mainstream of modern archaeological thought, as it has developed since the s, stressing its scientific character.

Consequently, not only is the character of this discipline an interesting philosophical question, but it is an important current issue in both the philosophy and practice of contemporary archaeology. The dividing line between arts and sciences in philosophical terms has been a matter of much debate. It is obviously inappropriate to reiterate or add to this here. A broad and, I hope, generally acceptable view of the contrast between arts and sciences is that sciences are those subjects in which the relative plausibility of rival hypotheses is capable of evaluation by some form of testing, and arts those in which subjective assessments are made.

One might go further and claim that all science must be based upon mathematical principles, whereas in arts subjects this is not so. By such broad definitions, archaeology is, of necessity, a scientific discipline. Data are compared numerically, or in terms of numbers of shared traits, or patterns, all methods ultimately reducible to mathematical terms.