Archaeology: A Bad Science?

Archaeology, often hailed as the key to understanding our past, stands at a contentious crossroads between the humanities and the sciences. Unlike pure sciences, which rely heavily on quantitative data and mathematical models to test hypotheses, archaeology is largely interpretative and subjective. The field depends on analyzing artifacts, structures, and cultural remains, often incomplete or degraded over time. This reliance on fragmentary evidence means that much of archaeological interpretation is speculative, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The subjective nature of archaeology raises questions about its scientific rigor, as interpretations can vary significantly depending on the archaeologist’s perspective, cultural background, or theoretical framework.

In contrast, pure sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology adhere to strict methodologies that prioritize empirical data and mathematical precision. These disciplines employ controlled experiments, reproducible results, and quantitative analysis to validate theories and build on existing knowledge. Hypotheses in pure sciences are rigorously tested, often through repeated experiments, to either prove or disprove them. The mathematical models used in these fields are designed to predict outcomes with high accuracy, leaving little room for personal bias or interpretive flexibility. This reliance on hard data and reproducibility is what sets pure sciences apart from more interpretative disciplines like archaeology, where conclusions are often inferred from indirect evidence and are subject to ongoing debate.

While archaeology provides invaluable insights into human history and culture, its status as a “science” is frequently challenged due to its inherent subjectivity. The field’s heavy dependence on interpretation rather than objective data can lead to multiple, often conflicting, narratives about the past. Unlike pure sciences, where theories can be definitively proven or disproven, archaeology often deals in probabilities and possibilities rather than certainties. This makes archaeology a unique and valuable discipline, but one that straddles the line between science and the humanities, leading some to argue that it is more of a social science than a true, data-driven science. As a result, the conclusions drawn in archaeology should be viewed with a critical eye, understanding that they are often shaped as much by the archaeologist’s perspective as by the evidence itself.

In the competitive world of academia, the struggle for funding is fierce, particularly in fields like archaeology, where financial resources are often scarce. Universities and research institutions face significant pressure to secure grants and sponsorships, which are essential for conducting fieldwork, preserving artifacts, and supporting academic staff. Given the limited budget allocated to archaeology, institutions are often forced to prioritize projects that promise high visibility and public interest, sometimes at the expense of rigorous scientific inquiry. This competition can lead to a climate where sensationalism takes precedence over careful, evidence-based research, with archaeologists making bold claims to capture the attention of the media and potential funders.

The egos of leading professors and researchers further complicate this landscape. In their quest for prestige and recognition, some academics may resort to undermining their peers in an effort to secure funding and enhance their credibility. This can create a toxic environment where collaboration and peer review are replaced by rivalry and one-upmanship. The need to stand out and secure funding can lead to premature announcements of discoveries or theories that have not been fully vetted or substantiated. These announcements often make headlines and capture public imagination, but they also contribute to a growing perception that archaeology is a field rife with contentious guesses rather than solid, verifiable knowledge.

As a result, the discipline of archaeology risks becoming a series of unproven hypotheses, each vying for attention but lacking the robust evidence needed to withstand critical scrutiny. This trend diminishes the credibility of the field as a whole, as the public becomes increasingly skeptical of claims that are later debunked or revised. The focus on media appeal and public interest, driven by the need for funding, can overshadow the meticulous and often slow process of scientific validation that is essential to any credible discipline. In the long run, this erodes trust in archaeology and undermines its potential to contribute meaningful insights into our understanding of the past.

The misinterpretations surrounding Stonehenge, Iron Age hill forts, and linear earthworks like dykes stem from a failure to fully integrate emerging technologies and scientific methods into archaeological research. For instance, Stonehenge is often dated to the Neolithic period, around 3000 to 2000 BCE. However, as discussed in the blog “The Stonehenge Code”, significant evidence, including Mesolithic carbon dates from quarry sites associated with Stonehenge, was largely ignored. The Mesolithic carbon dates suggest activity at these quarries—and potentially the beginnings of Stonehenge itself—could have occurred much earlier, possibly as far back as 8500 BCE.

This oversight exemplifies how the subjective nature of archaeology can lead to selective interpretation of data. If a more scientific approach incorporating probability and statistical analysis had been employed, it might have revealed that the likelihood of these earlier dates being relevant to Stonehenge’s construction was much higher. Instead of discarding the Mesolithic evidence, a rigorous application of mathematical models could have provided a more nuanced understanding of the site’s history, possibly redefining the origins of one of Britain’s most iconic monuments. This tendency to favor prevailing theories over emerging evidence highlights the risk of allowing unproven hypotheses to dominate the discourse.

Similarly, the classification of over 3,300 sites across Britain as “Iron Age hill forts” reveals another instance of entrenched archaeological assumptions. As discussed in the blog on Iron Age hill forts, many of these earthworks have little to no concrete evidence that they were constructed during the Iron Age or served as fortifications. The absence of mass graves or signs of warfare at these sites challenges the accuracy of their classification as “forts.” This misclassification has had a stifling effect on further research, as archaeologists may overlook evidence suggesting alternative uses or time periods.

The issue extends to linear earthworks or dykes, traditionally attributed to the Saxon period due to their names. However, LiDAR technology has revealed these structures to be much older and likely filled with water, suggesting they served as transport hubs rather than defensive boundaries. Discoveries such as the Roman barge at Car Dyke indicate that these features predate the Saxon era, further supported by recent scientific analyses pointing to a Mesolithic origin. This evidence fundamentally changes our understanding of these dykes, emphasizing the need to integrate new findings into the archaeological narrative.

The failures to interpret these sites accurately often stem from a broader oversight in archaeological analysis: the post-glacial flooding that reshaped Britain’s landscape. According to research on post-glacial flooding, large portions of Britain were submerged under water for thousands of years after the last Ice Age. This created waterways essential for transportation, trade, and monumental construction, allowing a megalithic civilization to thrive. Many archaeologists, lacking training in hydrology, have not fully grasped the significance of this waterlogged environment, leading to misinterpretations about the origins and functions of these prehistoric sites.

This dysfunction has contributed to a discipline that is arguably 70% suggestive fiction and only 30% scientific fact, where speculative interpretations often overshadow hard evidence. By failing to consider the dynamic nature of ancient landscapes and the significance of waterways, archaeology risks misrepresenting the true complexity of Britain’s prehistoric past. A more interdisciplinary approach, incorporating hydrology, geology, and climate science, is crucial to reconstructing these environments accurately and moving beyond preconceived notions.

In conclusion, while archaeology employs various scientific techniques, it is not immune to human biases and the influence of external pressures. The reliance on subjective interpretation over empirical data, the competition for funding, and a tendency to favor popular narratives have contributed to a discipline that often straddles the line between science and speculative storytelling. By embracing a more evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach, archaeology can enhance its credibility and offer a more accurate exploration of our past, reducing the current imbalance between fiction and fact in the field.

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

Other Blogs