The discussion about history and archaeology suffers from a lack of
grounding in examples, hypothetical or otherwise.  I would like to suggest
that there are no set  standards applicable to either field with which we
may objectively determine a person's qualifications.  The reason I am
bothering to write this is that my dissertation involves
"interdisciplinary" research which involves social anthropology,
archaeology, and history (although I don't call myself an historian) -
social theory, analysis of text and fieldwork on historic sites.  My
research problem and orientation has required the kind of training I've
managed to get, and it requires both documentary and archaeological
materials for resolution.  To restate, I've gone after the training I need
to handle the things I' interested in.  In other words, I agree with Dan
Mouer.   In my opinion, it's what a person does why they do it, and , not
what they call themselves or what department their degree(s) came from which
should be important.
 
best,
Matt
__________________________________________________________
Matt Tomaso.
[log in to unmask]
Anthropology.   University of Texas at Austin.
Phone/Fax 512-453-6256
__________________________________________________________