Ian, I just finished my M.A. last August. My undergraduate degree was in anthropology/history with an emphasis on archeology. I did not go to graduate school until several years later. Which gave me plenty of time to work in archeology and not only apply, but the opportunity to study archeological methods. My graduate degree is in Public History with my thesis on historical archeology. Although archeology is not technically a part of the degree program at the University of Arkansas (Little Rock), the program chair alowed me to do my thesis on archeology as long as there was an historical aspect to it. Another part of the program requirements was an internship. They also alowed me to do an internship in historical archeology under "Skip" Abernathy in Russelville, Ar. My point is that, although undergraduate programs can introduce a student to historical methods, it is in the graduate program that research methods (both historical and archeological) are stressed. What is needed in training future historical archeologists are more flexible programs that will allow a student to experiance both. In undergrade programs advisors should stress to to students that taking a few years off between degrees to work in the field will impart knowledge that can't be learned in school or place stronger emphasis on intern programs. The angle of approach for both research methods are different, but can be combined into a beneficial learning experiance for the student if the program and the instructors are flexible enough to let each individual explore areas of intrest within the universities graduate guidelines. I'm not sure if this opinion will help, but there it is. William McAlexander AHTD Little Rock, Arkansas -----Original Message----- From: Iain Stuart [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 6:32 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Teaching Historical Archaeology? Teaching Historical Archaeology? I was just reading through the winter SHA Newsletter (Vol 32 no 4) when I came across the sections Teaching Historical Archaeology. Does anyone have any problems with the papers reproduced there? While I agree with much that is discussed my main concern is the emphasis on anthropology particularly in the paper "Teaching Archaeology in the 21st Century: Thoughts on Graduate Education". Here the ideal prospective grad student should have a strong background in anthropology and go on to do further work in anthropology (yes Virginia I know Americans say "anthropology" when they mean "archaeology"). But, where does a background in history (or for that matter cultural or historical geography) fit in? Surely some exposure to the study of history is essential for a budding historical archaeologist and something that SHA should be pushing instead of more and more anthropology. It seems that the end result might be that historical archaeologists will be able to tell a Folsom from a Clovis point but not a primary from a secondary document! Moreover, I wonder if this state of affairs might contribute to the general unease concerning the role of history in historical archaeology (as often discussed in this forum) and the naivete that historians often find in historical archaeology? Maybe historical archaeologists are not being adequately trained in methods and practice of historical research? If this is so then the SHA should be addressing this issue rather than seeming to go along with the SAA whose interests are obviously different. I would be interested if anyone else has similar thoughts on this matter.