Archaeology as a social science Michael E. Smith a,1 , Gary M. Feinman b , Robert D. Drennan c , Timothy Earle d , and Ian Morris e a School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85298; b Department of Anthropology, The Field Museum, Chicago, IL 60605-2496; c Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; d Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; and e Department of Classics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Edited by Patrick V. Kirch, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved April 3, 2012 (received for review February 8, 2012) Because of advances in methods and theory, archaeology now addresses issues central to debates in the social sciences in a far more sophisticated manner than ever before. Coupled with methodological innovations, multiscalar archaeological studies around the world have produced a wealth of new data that provide a unique perspective on long-term changes in human societies, as they document variation in human behavior and institutions before the modern era. We illustrate these points with three examples: changes in human settlements, the roles of markets and states in deep history, and changes in standards of living. Alternative pathways toward complexity suggest how common processes may operate under contrasting ecologies, populations, and economic integration. anthropology | cultural evolution | economics | sociology | political science S cholars and the public typically think of archaeology as an en- deavor to find earliest examples of such things as the domesticated horse or writing or cities. All too often, articles with archaeological themes in the popular media focus solely on our recovery of things associated with the particularities of history. This emphasis misrepresents archaeology, a scientific discipline that has advanced greatly in recent decades. We argue that archaeology can now make significant contributions to the broader social sciences. This advance results from two major trends: the accumulation of considerable new fieldwork data from around the world and the development of new methods and concepts that transform our evidence into reliable reconstructions of past social dynamics. In recent decades, scientifically minded archaeologists from both the anthropological and the classics traditions have found common ground in the rigorous analysis of past human soci- eties and their changes through time. At first glance the raw data of archae- ology—things like broken pieces of pots, stone tools, and fragmentary architectural remains—might not seem ideal for ana- lyzing past social systems, economic pro- cesses, or political dynamics. However, analytical advances, including increasingly sophisticated applications of methods from chemistry and physics, now permit many past economic phenomena to be reconstructed with considerable detail. Archaeologists can pinpoint the places of origin of many raw materials and objects and reconstruct ancient technology and manufacturing. Scientific and ar- chaeological techniques now permit increasingly precise dating of sites and artifacts. And new computer power allows archaeologists to find and compare pat- terns in the extraordinary richness of small finds from archaeological sites. Concep- tual advances then allow the new data to be used to reconstruct many phenomena of basic interest in the social sciences, from inequality and stratification systems to market economies and political institutions. Archaeological data have several advantages for studying past societies. First, they are the only source of infor- mation about the human past before the invention of writing and the development of historiographic traditions. Thus, ar- chaeology gives scholars access to the full range of the human experience, including social forms unlike any that have existed in modern or historical times. Second, ar- chaeology can inform about all segments of society, including commoners, peasants, the underclass, and slaves, groups often left out of early historical accounts. Third, ar- chaeological findings provide a long-term perspective on change, documenting the origins of agriculture, the Urban Revolu- tion, and other transformational social changes. Indeed, archaeology is crucial to a renewed interest in what is now called “Deep History” (1). Fourth, the standard use of random (or quasi-random) sam- pling methods and quantitative analysis in modern archaeology allows rigorous conclusions about past conditions and changes. Fifth, we now have archaeologi- cal data from many regions, allowing systematic comparative analysis of these changes and social patterns. Sixth, most of the societies reconstructed by archae- ologists are independent of the western cultural tradition that has been the focus of analysis by most of the social sciences. Many findings from our own fieldwork projects—and those of our colleagues— relate to major themes in the social sci- ences. In the past the dissemination of archaeological data was oriented primarily toward the disciplines of anthropology and classics. Wider access to our data was (and remains) limited due to publication practices, including the assembly of lengthy technical reports and publication in specialized journals. As active field- workers in both the anthropological and the classical traditions, we, the authors of this report recognize the applicability of some of our results beyond these narrow disciplinary contexts and we present three topics as illustrations. We begin with the earliest sedentary villages and later urban settlements, omitting the lengthy earlier record of Paleolithic hunter– gatherers because these societies are of less relevance to the social sciences outside of anthropology. Our next two examples focus on ancient state-level societies: market economies and standards of living. We then discuss current trends in multidisciplinary research in which ar- chaeology is positioned at the intersection of the social and natural sciences. The above examples are only a small selection from the many archaeological studies rel- evant to the social sciences today, but they provide an idea of the new relevance of archaeological data to the social sciences, particularly when viewed from a multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary perspective. Villages and Cities The concept of the village has become reified and romanticized in both popular and scholarly discourse. Phrases such as “it takes a village” (2) and “urban village” (3) idealize village life as a stable and normal pattern of social interaction stretching back to Neolithic origins. Ar- chaeological fieldwork around the world has now accumulated considerable data on human settlements—from villages to cities—and their dynamics of change through time. Empirical data now show that some things widely considered to be ancient and timeless (e.g., forms of com- munity life and social interaction in urban Author contributions: M.E.S., G.M.F., R.D.D., T.E., and I.M. de- signed research, performed research, and wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mesmith9@asu.edu. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1201714109 PNAS | May 15, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 20 | 7617–7621 PERSPECTIVE