I'm a bit late weighing in on this thread, but I think a couple of important
points have been overlooked.  Apologies for the length.  Several posters
made reference to historical archaeology and history as social sciences.
I don't know *any* historians who consider themselves social scientists, and I
think this difference in the way we define ourselves may be an important
contributing cause to the unfortunate fact that we seem to spend most of our
time talking past each other.
 
*If* historical archaeologists consider themselves social scientists then
some of the other comments about "truth" and "knowing" the past may be
considered the result of that self-definition.  Sciences tend to
search for objective truth through the development of hypotheses and
theories.  Accordingly, as a social science, historical archaeology
ought to be able to provide objective truths (I've seen it phrased
"ground truth") about the past.
 
Historians do not define themselves in this fashion and most would argue
that it is impossible to objectively present history or to "know" the
"truth" about the past.  I suppose most historians consider their profession
a liberal art, with the appropriate emphasis on "art."  No historian worth
their salt would profess to being able to present a wholly objective and
true representation of the past.  All history is an act of interpretation.
We select the "facts" we use to tell the story and we decide when to start
and stop the tale.  The cultural baggage an individual historian brings to the
task at hand also shapes the way in which the story is presented.  Most of
the historical profession has acknowledged that "objectivity," in the
scientific sense, is impossible and that ultimately one cannot "know" the
past [see Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream_ and David Lowenthal's _The Past
is a Foreign Country_].
 
Historians are painfully aware of the fact that documentary sources
provide an imperfect glimpse of the past.  That's why we're trained to
use multiple sources, to combine those sources creatively and
thoughtfully, and, after all that, to still recognize that the view is
cloudy and fragmentary.  The old archaeology strawman about historians
rejecting all but documentary sources is pretty stale.  The best historians
are like sponges, soaking up whatever information helps tell the story.
Material culture studies, including archaeological artifacts, are simply
one more thread to be woven into the tapestry.  I think that many
historians, perhaps unfortunately, resist the use of archaeological
evidence because they are suspicious of the claims for scientific,
objective truth made by many archaeologists.  That claim violates every
instinct of the historian.
 
Given such vastly different ways of viewing the evidence, and the past
itself, it's scarcely surprising that we find it difficult to talk with
each other.  Nevertheless, I think several people had a valid point when
they noted that many archaeologists feel little compunction about considering
themselves qualified to conduct historical research and interpret historical
data with only minimal training, while few historians would feel
similarly qualified to conduct archaeological investigations after
a couple of undergraduate courses and some supplementary reading.  It
surprises me that archaeologists react so violently when historians
complain about archaeologists pretending to be historians.  I can imagine
what the reaction in the archaeological community would be if the shoe
was on the other foot.  Learning the methods of historical research and
interpretation and becoming skilled in the art of teasing a story from a
seemingly non-descript source [see Laurel Ulrich's _A Midwife's Tale_]
requires more than a casual introduction to history.  That's why most
historians and professional historical organizations are lobbying against
the National Park Service qualification standards that require only a BA for
a historian, but an MA for an archaeologist.  Is someone with a BA in
archaeology or anthro qualified to consider themselves a professional in
their field?
 
Perhaps recognition of our differing professional perspectives on such
matters as objectivity and the ability to know the past will allow us to
move towards a more open dialogue.
 
Patrick O'Bannon
[log in to unmask]