While I know that Carl and other historians on this list are more than
capable of defending themselves, I want to jump in again.  Most
archaeologists who study the historic period are not, repeat not, well
educated in either histoiography or historic research methods.
 
MA anthropology programs, were most practioners get their degrees, (and
even many PhD programs) discourage students from taking classes in other
departments.  While Ned's rant about history departments' shunning the
real world of nonacademic practice rings true to an extent, it has
always (in the last 30 years) been possible to get an education in
American social history at large universities. I don't understand how a
"historical" archaeologist who is not equipped with such basic
knowledge  can hope to do an effective job.
 
While I went to considerable trouble to get cross-trained to an extent,
not many students do (American Studies co-major, U.S. history minor,
graduate methods coursework).
 
Historians bring expert knowledge of the past as reflected in documents
that is critical for the development of the context of material remains.
I continue to be amazed by the obscure information a trained historian
can find.  That said, historians' lack of respect for the insights of
the material record certainly contributes to an atmosphere of mutual
suspicion.
 
Regards to All,
John
 
John P. McCarthy, SOPA
Vice President, Sr. Archaeologist/Historian
IMA Consulting, Inc.
Minneapolis