Britannica Sources used in this answer

How does archaeology differ from history in the evidence each field uses?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Archaeology Archaeologists mapping their finds at Pachacamac, Peru, an Indigenous town occupied from approximately 200 bce to 1532 ce, when it was sacked by conquistadors under the command of Francisco Pizarro.

Archaeology and history are both disciplines dedicated to understanding the human past, but they differ primarily in the nature of the evidence they prioritize.

Primary Sources of Evidence

History: Traditionally, historians focus on written texts as their primary source of evidence, such as letters, laws, administrative records, and accounts from previous historians. While the scope of historical evidence has expanded in the 20th century to include items like photographs, coins, and even scientific data like tree rings or DNA, the field remains fundamentally rooted in the analysis of documentary records.1
Archaeology: Archaeologists primarily examine material culture—the physical objects made, used, and discarded by human beings. This includes everything from stone tools and pottery to architecture, art, and environmental remains.23

Scope and Methodology

Because archaeology relies on material remains, it is the only source of information for prehistoric societies that existed before the development of writing. While historians often focus on specific events and individual actions documented in texts, archaeological evidence typically reflects long-term history, such as generational or sociocultural changes.32

In modern practice, these distinctions are increasingly fluid. Archaeologists often incorporate written documents when available to supplement their findings, and historians frequently utilize archaeological data to broaden their understanding of the past.321