To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not f

To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.