Well, Denis --

I did offer make suggestions on how to "improve" -- as I envision it -- the
training in historical archaeology.

One example was when I served on a SHA curriculum committee many ears ago.
I suggested that for the typical 30 credit hour MA in hist. arch., the
student should take 6 to 9 credit hours in the history thematic area or
time period in which they hoped to eventually work.  For example, Colonial
or Revolutionary America, Western History or the History of Technology.
Well, you can image how well that went over with the traditional
arch/anthro types on the committee.  (As an aside, schools like Michigan
Tech really have this interdisciplinary training as part of their Hist.
Arch. program).

I have also organized or chaired sessions at SHA and WHA meetings using
papers that truely explored the need for and benefits of integration
between the two disciplines, i.e. history and historical archeology.

Finally, have also taked to forward-thinking (IMHO) academics, like Don
Hardesty, who are training future generations of historical archaeologists
about how to develop better, more holistically, trained people -- again
from my perspective in the CRM field -- and we are of the opinion that
folks should obtain one degree in a particular field, and their next degree
in the related field.  For example, students would get their MA in history
or hist. arch., and their next degree in the opposite, i.e. hist. to hist.
arch, or hist. arch. to history.  The hide-bound traditionalists will have
a hard time with this, but I think the graduates/practioners, and the
historic resources themselves,  will be the better for it.

One commentator on this thread hit the nail right on the head.  Without
this interdisciplinary background, you are working in an "intellectual
vacuum."

Cheers!

Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO