Tim

It can work both ways. It probably depends on the university and what  
is wanted or expected out of the appointment. I will admit to a  
prejudice towards archaeologists, but then I am one. Although given  
my interest in the history of technology I spend more time reading,  
than digging.

My primary area of interest is the colonial and early 19C iron  
industry. A couple of years ago Virginia Commonwealth U was looking  
for someone with a specialization in the history of technology for  
the history department. They wanted someone with a PhD in history.  
There really isn't much in the way of documentation until the 1850s.  
So what is known comes from archaeology. I would argue that while  
there are documents on 17th, 18th, and early 19th century technology  
how the theory was applied is not well known. So one has to turn to  
experimentalists. These don't tend to be historians, but then aren't  
necessarily archaeologists either. Most of the iron experimenters I  
know are blacksmiths. Also the documents that are available are not  
necessarily the best, just the most available. For instance many  
people are still using K Bruce's 1930 Virginia Iron Manufacture in  
the Slave Era or Binning’s 1938 Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the  
Eighteenth Century, or inaccurate one’s like Overman’s 1850 The  
Manufacture of Iron, In All Its Various Branches. Even Dr. Bruce  
admitted (in her preface)that she knew nothing about the technology  
and that her work was only a beginning. What is particularly  
disturbing is that even recent books such as Dr.  John Bezis-Selfa"s  
(Wheaton College) 2004 Forging America: Ironworkers, Adventurers, and  
the Industrious Revolution use outdated sources and exhibit a marked  
lack of technological expertise. Admittedly Beizis-Selfa was  
concerned primarily with the workers and the bosses, but his  
descriptions of many of the processes and much of his "background"  
history is wrong. While it has been my experience that historians  
tend to be less technologically aware, there are more than a few  
archaeologists that have published rubbish.

I am a firm believer in Deetz's In Small Things Forgotten: An  
Archaeology of Early American Life. While a lot of historians are  
aware of what archaeology offers, many are not or are perfectly  
willing to ignore it. You can't do early American history well  
without archaeology. This is especially true of the periphery, like  
industrial development.

About half of the people who were in my MA anthro classes at William  
and Mary were in the History PhD program. They recognized the value  
of our courses. There were a number that were cross department (had  
both History and Anthro numbers).

I attended College High at Montclair State Teachers College way back.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]