Is archaeology a science? Insights and imperatives from 10,000 articles and a year of reproducibility reviews

Abstract

The status of archaeology as a science has been debated for decades and influences how we practice and teach archaeology. This study presents a novel bibliometric assessment of archaeology's status relative to other fields using a hard/soft framework. It also presents a systematic review of computational reproducibility in published archaeological research. Reproducibility is a factor in the hardness/softness of a field because of its importance in establishing consensus. Analyzing nearly 10,000 articles, I identify trends in authorship, citation practices, and related metrics that position archaeology between the natural and social sciences. A survey of reproducibility reviews for the Journal of Archaeological Science reveals persistent challenges, including missing data, unspecified dependencies, and inadequate documentation. To address these issues, I recommend to authors basic practical steps such as standardized project organization and explicit dependency documentation. Strengthening reproducibility will enhance archaeology's scientific rigor and ensure the verifiability of research findings. This study underscores the urgent need for cultural and technical shifts to establish reproducibility as a cornerstone of rigorous, accountable, and impactful archaeological science.