Dan Mouer makes an excellent point. Historical Archaeology can be described
as the archaeology of European expansion, or it can be described as the
archaeology of documented places.
 
For my part, I like to think of historical archaeology as a holistic effort
in which the exhumer of artifacts is but one actor. My current team
includes a group of genealogists, a tinsmith, a dendrochronologist, a
forester, a flotation specialist, a faunal analyst, a metallurgist, an
artist, and whoever else I might need. A few of these people also happen to
be qualified archaeologists. I will talk to an optometric historian about
the eyeglasses we found, and a historian of shoe making probably will
contribute an entire chapter to the report.  I'm also going to talk to a
dancing-master who specializes in eighteenth-century dance.
 
We need to remember that our discipline crosses all aspects of human
knowledge, so that we might interpret the human condition. The person who
thinks he can interpret a site from archaeological evidence alone is (check
all that apply):
 
1. ( ) an idiot
2, ( ) a pompous ass
3. ( ) incompetent
4, ( ) hiding something
5. ( ) greedy
6. ( ) hopelessly ignorant
7. ( ) all of the above
 
 _______
 |___|__\__==    Noblesse Oblige is when a
 | _ |  |  --]   Land Rover owner offers a           <DARWIN><
 =(O)-----(O)=   ride to an unfortunate Jeep          "     "
================ owner who longs for a real 4x4.
 
Ned Heite, town crank and contract archaeologist, Camden, Delaware