I submit that youre understanding re: Archeological narratives"not being historical" is quite flawed.
No, but thanks for your concern.
If archeologists were doing history, then there wouldn't be a separate discipline of archeology. It would all be "history," and they'd teach archeological techniques as part of the history curriculum. But they don't, and for very good reason: archeologists and historians don't
do the same thing.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't any cross-over between the two disciplines. Historians of ancient civilizations, for instance, would be lost without archeological finds. There are plenty of examples of historians relying on archeological evidence as part of historical narratives. But don't kid yourself into thinking that, because historians use archeological evidence, that somehow makes them archeologists, or that archeologists are somehow acting like historians. In short, just because you play with a rubber duck in your bathtub, that doesn't make you an ornithologist.