While I too remember James Deetz arguing that American archaeology was
nothing if it wasn't anthropology, I also remember him saying that that
arrangement was historically arbitrary (a consequence of American
anthropology's historic, four-field focus upon  Native Americans), that
the French and British tend to regard archaeology as a subfield of
history, and that that arrangement seemed to work quite well (provided
that archaeologists could gain some autonomy and respect).  This same view
is implicit in the vision of historical archaeology which he articulated
in Flowerdew Hundred, that of an area of inquiry which transcended the
boundaries of history and of archaeology, and could tell us more about the
past that either discipline could separately.

Brian Siegel