At the outset, let me say that my degrees are in history.  Then let
me state that it is very difficult to hire graduate historians
capable of turning out professional historical work.

About a century ago, the historical profession turned itself inward,
eschewing any practical applications. As a result, after a century of
indoctrination, the profession's standards (conscious or unconscious)
are directed toward nothing but the teaching of history.

Nearly forty years ago, when I was a graduate student in history, I
suggested to my advisor that I wanted to go into museum or historical
agency work. I had to explain to him what that meant. He was
convinced that the only jobs for history graduates were teaching
jobs. In many history graduate programs even today, job prospects are
measured in teaching appointments; failure means working outside
academia.

As a result, today's working historians are not considered real
professionals by the traditional historical establishment. Even the
national "public history" organization is a club of academics with a
few overqualified historians who do real work.

I have been in the position of hiring historians for CRM, for
preservation agencies, and for the state archives. Generally
speaking, candidates have been clueless about the real hands-on world
of historical research.  They have never been taught that people can
use history, or that primary research can actually make a difference
in people's lives.  In short, pitifully few graduate "historians" are
employable.

Moreover, I have yet to encounter a candidate fresh out of grad
school who can put together a descent of title, write a genealogy, or
tie onsite events to larger events in the outside world.  They
inevitably launch into abstractions designed to please academic
colleagues, that frustrate the folks who need real information.

There have been a few academic historians, like Admiral Morison, who
could function in the real world as working historians.  I remember
the tone of disgust that my professors used when referring
(sneeringly) to "Our Admiral of the Ocean Sea" who had prostituted
the profession.  Yet he is considered a founder of public history in
government agencies.  Every military post has a historian, but I've
yet to hear from any academics who consider this a career worth
training their best people to pursue.

Is it any wonder that the best-selling historical books are written
by journalists and others outside the academic historical fold?  May
I venture to suggest that journalists are better practical historians
than are the professional historians?  How many history professors do
you see on Jim Lehrer's program, interpreting events? News shows will
interview political scientists and economists, even anthropologists,
before they turn to history professors to explain the meaning of
events that are happening.

So the bottom line is that the history departments are not interested
in teaching students how to interpret deeds and wills.  The products
of typical history programs are highly qualified to teach history,
but they probably couldn't write the history of their own house.  In
fact, they probably would not consider a house history worthy of
their attention. And genealogy? God forbid they should do
genealogy!!!!!

Okay, I'll admit that I first majored in history with the intention
of becoming a journalist, on the advice of a managing editor for whom
I worked.  That was before I met Howard MacCord and learned what neat
things you can do with archaeology.

But, back to the subject: If you want historical perspective that is
useful for historical archaeology, it's not likely you will find it
in the history departments of most universities. You are more likely
to find good historians among the journalism majors, who are taught
investigative and interpretative techniques of a more practical sort.

A minor in journalism would solve the two major shortcomings in our
profession: writing and relevance. Most archaeologists don't know how
to write, and very few are able to make broad connections from
disparate (interdisciplinary) sources. Journalists are trained in
both areas. Let's look there for our next generation of historians,
or let's include journalism among the preferred minors.  If a school
teaches "communication" instead of "journalism," the real
journalistic courses are there somewhere.

So where does that leave the budding historical archaeologist?  The
two Jim Deetz books are a good start. I have given young people
copies of the seminal INH Historical Archaeology. Stan South's stuff
is a little too theoretical for young minds, but he's a solid
communicator. That's just about the library.  For those with strong
backs and fat wallets, I would always suggest If These Pots Could
Talk. It's full of pots, but it opens a really great window on one of
the important minds in our profession.

But as for anthropology as the basis for historical archaeology, I
think the jury is still out. Anthropology informs the techniques, but
too much anthropological archaeology is without the external contexts
that historical or industrial archaeological interpretation requires.
But that observation must be saved for another diatribe.

--
[log in to unmask]

For any awkward moment, in any conversation,
there is always an appropriate, or insanely
inappropriate, limerick.