Is Archeology more of a study of history or a study of science?
>>892577
They told me to come here?
>>>/sci/7957523
>>892542
Both.
It's a humanity with a heavy usage of science.
It depends entirely on where you live, and to a lesser extent, theoretical orientation.
In most of Europe, archaeology is viewed more as a humanity, and usually a branch of history. In the US, it's a subfield of anthropology, and is treated as a social science. In either case, it's not a natural science, but some theoretical strands and forms of artifact analysis lean as much towards that direction as possible (for example, people like Binford trying to make archeology entirely positivistic). In general, though, it's approached as kind of a mix of the two.
>>892605
lol
>>892672
at my (European) uni archeology is under department of historical sciences at faculty of arts, however half of subjects like geology or (physical) anthropology are taught at faculty of natural sciences.
