Archeology not a science

Coin dealer, polymath and scientist Dave Welsh calls archeologists out:

it is unclear what path could be followed to initiate a genuinely scientific investigation and study of "looting" and illicit trafficking in "looted" artifacts. I do not see any likelihood that such an investigation and study could be pursued until there is realization in government that archaeology really is NOT a science, because it does not require rigorous testing and conclusive proof of hypotheses (such as "collecting = looting") before accepting them as dogma. If the arguments advanced by archaeologists in favor of the "collecting = looting" hypothesis are closely examined, they contain elementary logical fallacies such as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," or "it is obvious, therefore it must be true," and furthermore they do not conform to rules of evidence that prevail in judicial proceedings. Having pursued "hard sciences" such as physics and mathematics during my university studies, where I also minored in philosophy, and having practiced these sciences during my Engineering career, I am appalled by the lack of anything resembling genuine scientific rigor and logical consistency in the pseudo-science of archaeology. Only when it is realized that responsible public policy making cannot originate in this sort of loose, largely erroneous thinking, will it become possible to accurately and responsibly determine the actual causes of looting.

here here. There's more:

it would be both logical and responsible to establish some sort of oversight regarding activities of archaeologists that are supported by tax dollars. I have in mind specifically the anti-collecting activities of the archaeology lobby, and the excessive degree of "scholarly" attention being given to "studies" and "research" on the subjects of "illicit antiquities trafficking" and the "damage" allegedly being done to the archaeological record by antiquities collecting. Almost none of this so-called scholarship, in my opinion, would be regarded by physicists, mathematicians or logicians as conforming to the scientific method, scientific requirements for testing and proving hypotheses, and the rules of logic. Nor do I believe that what is being advanced as evidence in these "studies" and "research" would be accepted as conforming to the rules of evidence that prevail in legal proceedings. It would be wonderful to have genuine, closely scrutinizing oversight of such activities, which would expose the difference between what passes for "science" among archaeologists, and REAL science.