Processual Archaeology), wherein some declared that what archaeology needed was to be more scientific. I find it interesting that these major interests of mine can be united by the fact that all, at one time or another, were under some kind of pressure to conform to a scientific method. With breastfeeding and childbirth, this took the form of schedules and time limits and various procedures, instead of going with the natural flow of things; with archaeology this took the form of putting archaeology under anthropology and trying to be more scientific in analysing artefacts and an assumption that all aspects of a culture could be analysed through the material record.
Now, science certainly has its place within the study of breastfeeding, childbirth, and archaeology, and the scientific study of these things has led to greater understanding in some ways. The problem, however, comes in trying to force these things to fit within a certain framework (obviously it's a bit different with archaeology, since we're not talking about a natural biological function but the study of past societies and that study must be thorough and rigorous, but the human element still remains). Thankfully "new archaeology" was soon criticised for its shortcomings, and thankfully the "scientific" rules for breastfeeding are, in general, no longer in vogue. We're getting there with childbirth, but there's still a ways to go.