There is nothing like experience and expertise in a particular field.
Documentary research for archaeology is in a very poor state in the UK as
our curators (our equivalent of SHPOs) do not on the whole value background
historical research and increasingly fail to specify it in their briefs.
When work gets done it is again the lowest paid archaeologist who is
normally sent down the record office. I gave a paper a couple of years back
and I argued that I could train a literate intelligent person with some
vague sense of history to do a desk top (phase 1 survey) acceptable to most
curators (that is not to say it would be wonderful) in a couple of weeks but
added that it would take 30 years to train them to see what I could in an
Ordnance Survey map in 2 minutes. A recent example was when I realised a
medieval ferry dispute dated the demise of an excavated and apprently
unrecorded medieval bridge- having read (voluntarily)some desperately dull
books on the history of English law when I was a postgrad paid off not for
the first time. Which is a reminder that people in our sort of off centre
field have to take responsibility for their own training- i did a degree in
archaeology, then an MA in local history and finally a PhD in landscape
history. However, I have learnt a lot of stuff  since by working, reading,
writing, talking over a few beers, travelling, visiting museums, going to
language classes and buying far too many books. Its the ability to carry on
learning after you have your degrees that often sorts out the talented from
the plodders.

paul courtney
leicester UK

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: archaeologists and history


> The basic problem, and one I addressed in the paper I gave at MAAC last
> weekend, is that first and foremost American archaeologists are trained
> as anthropologists. Next we are trained as prehistorians. And last, if
> it is even offered, we are trained in historical archaeology. And if
> historic is offered, it is all about slaves and houses. The problem I
> was specifically addressing was the inability of most american
> archaeologists to adequately excavate industrial sites, and in
> particular those involved in iron production. This too is a horse we
> have beaten to death, without noticeable results.
>
> As an undergrad at the Univ. of PA, while most of my course work was in
> the Anthropology Dept., I did take both Russian and Asian history. I now
> wish I had taken some of the AmCiv courses, but there just wasn't time.
> When I was at Wm. & Mary doing an MA in historical archaeology, there
> were lots of internships available with the Colonial Williamsburg
> Archaeology Dept. But almost all of them went to the MA/PhD candidates
> in American Studies, not historical archaeology.