i remember once being told i wasn't a historical archaeologist because i wasn't a member of SHA (being a canadian living in europe, i'd actually never heard of it, even tho i was quite happily excavating medieval cellars & WW2 bomb shelters...)
wheeler had a great comment about archaeologists not knowing enough architecture to be able to figure out if the buildings they were documenting could have stood up; anthropologists & sociologists & military experts & just about everyone else would probably laugh at what we have to say when we intrude upon their areas of expertise
sort of what we think when the likes of barry fell or erich von daniken intrude upon our turf...
my own specialty these days is in trying to reconcile the geologically-derived model of stratigraphy with its geoarchaeological/pedological counterparts, but i also did a seriously in-depth survey of how archaeologists really misunderstood foucault
when are we going to accept that we're not philosophers, we're not engineers, we're not historians, etc., we're just archaeologists, and that if we want to understand our stuff we should call in the experts with training & expertise? we don't do our own C14, so why should we necessarily do our own oral history?

<[log in to unmask]> schrieb:
> Ron -
> 
> That's because few archs bother to talk to Historians, including those who
> specialize in Oral History