What are your thoughts on reductionist approaches? To science in general, but especially the grey areas between the natural and social sciences.

For instance in archaeology it's incredibly frowned upon to use reductionist interpretations for human behaviour (for instance climate change in prehistory, evolutionary pressures being responsible for human technological advancement, even up until now). It's generally considered too "deterministic" to think that and it's even been taught as wholly "unscientific" in one of my earlier classes. My archaeology bachelor thesis would have been around an 8/10 but it ended up being a 6,5/10 because "I inserted an evolutionary narrative where it didn't belong".

I honestly don't see the problem. Isn't it one of the holy grails of the sciences to look for a unifying theory of everything, which would include human biology and behaviour?