Having trained and worked as both an archaeologist and historian I have 
to agree with Lynda that faults are on both sides. So  a pox on both 
your houses. In my book the most annoying are archaeologists who think 
they can understand historical sources without years gaining the 
relevant background  knowledge of palaeography, law, historiography etc 
of the period involved. The average CRM phase 1 historical contribution 
in the UK is clearly written by people whose historical knowedge is 
based on watching TV cartoons. Not surprising as our schools only treach 
20th century history these days ofen repeating the same stuff at 
different ages- sorry for this very British gripe. Historians in general 
just prefer to ignore the existence of archaeology and archaeologists 
even in fields like ceramic history where archaeologists are half a 
century ahead. I remember a debate on some website on medieval housing 
where the only source that seemed to count for most participants was the 
last book by an American academic historian covering the subject in 2 
pages-  itself  a review of British archaeological work but 
unfortunately it was written just at the point as the existing paradigm 
was demolished,  thrown in the dustbin and rethought.

paul courtney
leicester
UK