This is an interesting question I ran into as a graduate student, if
you will, and had once applied for the very limited (2) fellowships
then available at the College of William and Mary in historical
archaeology at the graduate level but continued on at Stony Brook
University where I had completed my undergrad degree in Anthropology.

One of the perceptions is that anthropology is often involved in
synchronic studies, that is of a recent present, and diachronic
studies are more likely in archaeology. To use an example , it is
doubtful that a history department would study the material record
from archaeology to ascertain the economic flow of services to and
back from centers of power and government and whether the remains of
monumental architecture actually reflects that (or which part of that)
mechanism, using potsherds and other traces of past occupation,
especially of a very little known culture, like for example "La
Quemada"  ("burnt fort" not the name for the origin of tequilla in the
State of Jalisco, but the important archaeological site circa 300 AD:
"La Quemada (also known as Chicomostoc) is found built on and around a
remote hill in Zacatecas; its defensive importance more clearly in
evidence here than many other sites."
http://www.geocities.com/atlantis01mx/north_west/la_quemada.htm). At
the time Stony Brook University had a large collection of potsherds
from a number of levels and seasons that required further study, the
researcher deceased. Questioned on the theories of the "origin of the
state" (i.e. Zacatecas) I would probably have found the answer to that
questions tough going in the history department, though, perhaps the
history of the "tequilla" "LaQuemada" much easier. Also the neutron
activation of turquoise samples from various aboriginal mines in the
American Southwest, (perhaps in a "race" with Japanese scholars on
semi-autonomous lands) to establish perhaps provenance of artifacts
found elsewhere would not be likely undertaken in a History
Department.

The occasional papers of Ivor Noel Hume he has published from the
excavations at Williamsburg, were in the History Department library
(which led to his excellent guide to the artifacts of Colonial America
and "Historical Archaeology" and the former New York State Governor
and former US Vice President's family, the Rockefellers had a hand the
orginal funding of the program of recreating it in Virginia I've
heard) A housemate, familiar with Cherokee tradition, was teaching an
undergraduate history course on the relations of African-Americans and
Native Americans in the early formation of the U.S. and how they were
often used one against the other. He said I sholuld leave Anthropology
and join the History Dept to continue grad studies. I stopped driving
Tootsie Taxi instead.

I used to frequent an archaeology lab maintained by Edward Johanneman,
MA Anthropology who worked on a number of archaeology projects while
at Stony Brook for the State Museums, Dept. of Transportation, Suffolk
County Parks, and others. His assistant was a county award winning
history graduate, Laurie Schroeder, both in the fieldwork end which,
by definition, defines much of anthropology. There's nothing like
local historical archaeology to keep the public interested in the
social sciences departments which are sometimes small and combined,
i.e. sociology and anthropology, anthropology and archaeology. And
working in CRM we could certainly use more Ivor Noel Hume-ists.

My two cents
George J. Myers, Jr.