<HTML>A certain kind of attack on archaeology contrasts it with the `hard' sciences. Now it seems to me that archaeology is as scientific as it can be given its subject matter, but for some people the scientificity of archaeology is clearly a problem.
Repeatability is often seen as an important criterion of scientificity. Certain kinds of investigation (e.g. geophysics) clearly are repeatable, but when it comes to digging things up, this is far less clear. I've heard an archaeological dig described as `an experiment which can be performed only once'.
Presumably there are ways that archaeology can and does aim for something approaching repeatability, by carefully limiting excavation - controlled exploratory trenching etc.
Could someone who knows a bit more about this comment or provide pointers?
Whether or not repeatability is an important criterion in this context is of course moot.</HTML>
