Archeology, a field that I have immense respect for, strikes me as a sort of "applied historical study" which is richly informed by Science, and in general, the "hard sciences."
Anthropology, a field that I have some real problems with almost seems to me to be a form of literature, a form of literary conjecture, or perhaps a "preliterate philology" of illiterate cultures (an awkward phrase and concept, I know.) One could say that is is a "Social Science" which is, of course, to say that it is not a science at all, at least from my point of view.
I have a lot of trouble with anthropology, but occasionally these people put out some interesting stuff. I am just not sure that we need a "science" called "anthropology to get these writings.
Been there, doing that. Archaeology can be a hard science. In the US degrees are issued in Anthropology, with specialization in archaeology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc. Archaeology and physical anthropology can produce people with good training in the hard sciences--or not. The other branches generally do not. But none of the branches of anthropology are as bad as sociology! Anthropology seems to attract those who are interested in people, sociology attracts those who are more interested in politics and social engineering.