Based on my strictly amateur readings of research in archaeology and historical anthropology, they’re more contentious than I expected. People who jump to unsup

Based on my strictly amateur readings of research in archaeology and historical anthropology, they’re more contentious than I expected. People who jump to unsupported conclusions draw public criticism. There are many papers along the lines of “paper x is wrong for reasons a, b, and c”. It’s not math, so it’s not a clean procession of verifiable work, but their scientific method seems to be alive and well. The public image maybe suffers from earlier (~1900) work, which really does read like “here are some evidence-light ideas that strike me, a philosopher gentleman, as quite plausible”.