The place of historical archaeology, as a field of research within the
broader discipline of anthropological archaeology, was rather thoroughly
debated more than two decades ago. Summary documents regarding the topic
are found in Bob Schuyler's "Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive
and Theoretical contributions," (Baywood Press, 1978). This is hardly an
obscure publication or debate. The definition of the field that is
presented here is consistent with that concept. In particular, I would
suggest Bernard Fontana's "On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology,"
(chapter 7 in Schuyler, originally published in "American Antiquity"
31(1);61-65 [1965]) as providing a cogent summary of the direction that
historical archaeology has taken. The scholars who identify themselves as
historical archaeologists have a reasonably well-defined field of endeavor,
as is demonstrated in both the literature of "historical archaeology," and
at the annual meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology.

If you examine Schuyler's anthology then you will see that the idea that
"historical archeology" simply represents the archaeology of literate
peoples, is simply erroneous. The archaeology of numerous literate New
World peoples (such as the Mayans and Aztecs), and Old World peoples (such
as the Ancient Chinese, Greek, Romans, and Hebrews) are not considered to
be historical archaeology. For better, or worse, the conceptual basis of
this field has crystallized, and although it may seem distressing to some,
it seems extraordinarily unlikely to undergo a change in definition in
order to meet the expectations of popular audiences.

Dr. Jack Williams
Silent Co-listowner of HISTARCH