Well, Mike --

What do you consider an anthropological concept or question?

Would one be about how households are organized?  For the sake of
arguement, let's say it is.  To you, that may be an "anthropological
question."  To me, that's a "social history" question.

There probably are historians who are dismissive of archaeologists.  My
experience is that there are lots of archaeologists, even those who claim
to be "historical" archaeologists, who are as bad in their own sphere, i.e.
who make no effort to interact with historians, or even join professional
historical associations and make an effort to give papers at professional
historical meetings, e.g. OAH, WHA, just to name a few of the most obvious
and relevant ones.  In this framework, I could see that historians might
have no interest in endless tables of artifact counts that offer no context
or explanation of how they fit into, or contribute to, the historical
record or to historical understanding.  (But then, there are those who like
to simply count things --as if that alone was impressive-- on both sides.)
Who carries the most guilt?

This has been and issue with me, a historian, ever since I took post-grad
training in Hist. Arch., including a field school. I have tried to work
within the SHA, and the historical profession, to effect some badly needed
changes, IMHO, in the current state of affairs, or, perhaps stated better,
to encourage more "interdisciplinary" rather than "multidisciplinary" work.
There is a difference.

As it is, if I wanted to pursue this approach to training further, I'd be
more inclined to study "historical" archaeology abroad, such as in England,
where the indisciplinary connections/approaches are more widely recognized
and seemingly encouraged, then in the US.

Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO