As Bob Schuyler points out, the question of whether historical archaeology belongs to history or anthropology is hardly new, though it seems to crop up again at frequent intervals. There is no question, however, that historical archaeologists must be trained in history, and the SHA has said as much on many occasions. It is essential to be familiar with the primary documents relating to one's research and know how to use them. Knowing the secondary literature--and the controversies debated by historians--is just as important. The problem with student training is that there are very few genuine "programs" in historical archaeology. In fact, when I was on the SHA board, I objected to using that term in the title of our published guide, which is now called the "Guide to Higher Education in Historical Archaeology." In any case, there are fewer than 20 institutions listed each year that claim to offer the opportunity for students to pursue a degree emphasizing historical archaeology. That is a deplorable deficiency demanding remedy. The SHA should, indeed, be a vocal advocate for a much stronger presence of trained historical archaeologists on university faculties. As acknowledged in the Student Forum panel discussions over the past two SHA conferences, however, each individual must take some responsibility for his or her own education. Coursework in history may not be a degree requirement at some schools, but that does not preclude one taking relevant classes as electives. A true program would includ credits in a variety of related disciplines (including, perhaps, geography, urban planning, architectural history, etc.), but in the absence of such guidance each student must take the initiative in consultation with his or her committee. [log in to unmask]