The purpose of this Masters thesis is to compare classification codes and feature headings of three different universal classification schemes SAB, UDC and DDC, when classifying archaeological literature. The aim is to determine whether a subject analysis of a title generates similar feature headings in the three systems, and to find positive and negative things about each system from an archaeological point of view. The comparison and the analysis of the 22 chosen archaeological monographs showed that the subject analysis of the titles didnt always generate similar feature headings. This could depend on several things, for example different interpretations of the subject analysis of a document, less knowledge about the system and/or the subject, or the fact that its not the same classifier that creates the codes. The study also showed that the different classification systems did treat the subject archaeology a bit differently, and that its difficult to say that one of them is better for classifying archaeological literature. They have all their advantages. My conclusion is that there has to be differences between the feature headings when comparing the systems, primarily because of the structure of the systems and their way to treat archaeology as a subject. Its more important to note that there are divergences between the classification codes within a system.