Wow.... I think I missed a serious part of this thread.
Historians as mere story-tellers??? I think part of the
problem is that a lot of people's preconceived notions of
scientists is that they deal with empirical data of one
kind or another. You only have to do a little oral
history or a little reading to discover that two people
witnessing the same event will not recall it, or
interpret it, the same way. Perhaps the historian who
likened himself to an "artist" sees the "art" of history
in the gathering of sources and the interpretation of
history. Be aware, though, I've also heard archaeologists
refer to themselves as "artists" in that they are clever
in their interpretations about the past.
 
Historians who deny the value of material culture and
archaeological evidence are guilty of not assimilating
relevant data into their arguments.Material culture is
tricky, though. A recent burglarly taught me that. Some
extremely precious and sentimental things were stolen. A
hundred and fifty years from now, after the scum-bucket
who took them dies and appropriately horrible death :) ,
these artifacts will show up on a site, and the
archaeologist won't have a clue that the earrings were a
graduation present from my mother, or that a friend of
mine in Seattle made the pair of pearl earrings for my
wedding... But.. I digress (you get the idea)
Archaeologists who know that there is documentation for a
certain site or ship (I deal mostly in nautical) and do
not use it for interpretation or ananlysis are just plain
stupid. I'm working on my M.A. in maritime history and
nautical archaeology and you would not believe the rift
between the "historians" and the "archaeologists." I
believe the goals are the same. I believe it all blends
together. That's not to say that an untrained historian
should go and buy a Marshalltown and rip up an historic
site. I think we all do a disservice to the profession by
acknowledging "amateur" archaeologists by the same
reasoning (are there amateur *brain surgeons* out there?
Why are we spending all this money on education and
"paying our dues" if any clod with a field school behind
him can do this stuff?).
 
I am prepared to be flamed for this :)  Actually, I'm
looking forward to a lively debate. Someone has to tell
me why we can't all work to be proficient in more than
one trade. I made my living as an archaeologist for 9
years before turning to history. I'm using archaeological
and conservation information in my thesis. I can dig a
site, conserve the artifacts, do all the archival
research, write up the report, curate the artifacts,
design an exhibit, and set up an historic preservation
district or house museum. Is all of that such a bad
thing? Do we really have to zero ourselves down to narrow
nitches? I'll probably go back to archaeology at some
point, but I enjoy the historical aspects and challenges
of the "hunt" as well. Is that really so bad?
 
Amy K. Marshall