Carl Barna,
  
You recently wrote:
>>I have found it odd but very interesting that not once in this
>>prehistoric vs historic qualifications debate has there been
>>any acknowledement or recognition  of the need to involve
>>historians.
>>I wonder how far the competitors in this debate will push the
>>hypocrisy envelope as to who is fit to do what ?
Now you've hit my sore spot!   From my perspective, I think historical
archaeologists should be trained  historians .  That's how we earn the
title  "historical" archaeologist.  (or at least, from my humble viewpoint,
how we are SUPPOSED  to earn the title "historical" archaeologist.  Not
just because we work on historic sites -  in my mind, that's a prehistorian
working outside his or her area of expertise).  I've found that the unique
perspective of a true historical archaeologist working with documents is a
much better approach that a paid historian specialist whose work, more
often than not, is disconnected from the whole and stands alone in the CRM
report.  I've found that the hard core armchair historian without any
archaeology background often  does "not see" the very items in documents
and maps that are  the most meaningful to the project.   A good historical
archaeologist needs to be hybrid scholar, not just a dirt archaeologist
with a historians phone number in her pocket.   The most important point at
which historians should be involved is during our academic training.   
Linda Derry [log in to unmask]