I’m an archaeologist and I often think the same thing.

There’s no meaningful answer to this partly because admitting to this type of thing would ultimately undermine our theory and would highlight the fact that, as archaeologists, we make huge assumptions and leaps from very little data.

But also because we’ve built this massive body of narrative-driven interpretive theory that places more emphasis on the agency and human aspect of an archaeological artifact than the empirical and physical evidence of an artifact and it’s context.

Despite the processual movement in archaeology being particularly empirical, they also pushed for sharing the same goals as anthropology which simply does not work in archaeology (Willy and Phillips). The post-processual period after that further added to the more ‘human’ aspect of the field and more on interpreting what we find to give a more ‘humanistic’ view of the past (Hodder, Shanks, and Tilly amongst hundreds of others).

Ultimately, I think this has been detrimental to archaeology and has lead to these huge leaps that archaeologists make. This has moved archaeology farther and farther away from systematic and scientific approaches and more towards social scientific interpretations.

It would be fine if the explanations and theories were more encompassing and based on systematic excavations and analyses but they often are not. A good example of this is the Havering Hoard exhibit at the MOLA Docklands Museum in London.

The site is a Bronze Age hoard of axe heads and other tools and prestige goods. The entire exhibit is filled with nonsense about ritual and religion. They even have a full wall devoted to a projector that only shows the misty marshlands of site while playing weird ominous music. There’s a sign that reads something like “imagine being in such a mystical place where the mist hugs the ground and you rely on the sun for warmth”. Yeah, I live like 30 mins away, I know what it feels like, it’s not mystical.

There is an odd practice that was discovered of stuffing what seems to be waste bronze and other bits of trash into the hollow of an axe head (where the hilt or handle would be). All of the exhibit signs said this is likely a religious ritual but there are other theories.

They never mentioned the other theories, never explained why it would be ritual or religious nor what the other theories were.

Another aspect of it was the materials were often buried opposite a doorway that was usually facing East. Again, this was theorized to be a religious ritual as the sun likely held great importance to these people. I actually took a picture of this sign and it read “This alignment could be highly significant. Was this hoard an offering to the Sun or even an act of returning material to the ground”?

Or it could be that their doors faced East for heat and sunlight in the morning and they buried their treasures opposite the doorway because it was farthest away from the opening.

There has always been this trend of over theorizing and romanticizing the past in archaeology. This is in large part because archaeological theory and many archaeological theorists look down on ‘common sense’ and simple explanations for things.

There’s always been a deep divide between the practice of archaeology and the theory of archaeology. This is in part because of the ‘two culture’ divide in archaeology but also because archaeology draws so heavily from a number of other fields. There has never really been any standards or common methods developed and even the discussion of methods and practice is often absent in most theory articles and discussions.

This is a deepening divide with a large group of what I can only describe as anti-science theorists who favor things like vagueness, slowness, and are against technological developments and change. I was at a theory conference last Friday where there was a presentation on how archaeology is starting to make innovations and technological change just for the sake of making innovations… it’s complete nonsense but these are the type of people who are now the editors and reviewers at the major theory journals so it’s likely not going to change any time soon.

Anyway, to wrap up. It’s entirely possible that we’ve made many mistakes. I’ll add that many of our modern theories are still reliant on foundations developed in the 1800s by the likes of Sir Arthur Evans or Heinrich Schliemann. That’s a mess to get into but is problematic because of the imperialistic views they held. Everything was going to be a palace or a throne room because that was what they wanted it to be.

But at the moment, we don’t really have the means to discuss these types of things. Archaeology has become divided because it’s easier to just start your own journal and silo your work there than try to get it accepted by a journal where the editors and your reviewers all think that science is a bad word.