<P> Processualism's development transformed archaeology, and is sometimes called the "New Archaeology ." With few notable exceptions such as Boston University, universities in America classify archaeology as a sub-discipline of anthropology, while in Europe it is thought to be a subject more like historical studies . It is important to analyze which sciences are close kin because such analysis highlights the questions of what archaeology ought to study and in what ways . Like the other social scientists, the New Archaeologists or processualists wanted to utilize scientific methodology in their work . Archaeology, and in particular archaeology of the historical period, has sometimes been allied more with humanities disciplines such as Classics . The question of where to put archaeology as a discipline, and its concomitant issues of what archaeology ought to study and which methods it ought to use, likely played no small part in the emergence of post-processualism in Europe . </P> <P> In his 2010 book on archaeological theory, Mathew Johnson of the University of Southampton argued that despite the intervening 40 years since its development, the "intellectual questions" first posed by processualism remained "absolutely central" to archaeology . </P> <P> Processual archaeologist David L. Clarke suggested that the New Archaeology would face particular opposition from amateurs, historical archaeologists and practical excavators, although argued that such individuals would nevertheless benefit from the theory's adoption . </P> <P> Processualism began to be critiqued soon after it emerged, initiating a theoretical movement that would come to be called post-processualism . Post-processualist critics consider the main weaknesses of processual archaeology to be: </P>

Proponents of the new archaeology argued that archaeology should do which of the following