I'm sorry if the question, which relates specifically to where a *U.S. 
historical archaeologist* should be based, seems redundant.  It 
originally arose from a very specific situation based on our desire 
to improve a center and program by winning another academic 
position in a time and place where such resources are very hard to 
come by.

----- Original Message -----
From: Janice Adamson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: An academic-type question

> This really has opened a can of worms.  I believe the debate as to 
> whatdepartment archaeology should be based in is redundant 
and while
> interesting, is not particularly constructive.  In New Zealand our 
two
> universities both have archaeology based in Anthropology. It is 
> different in
> Australia.  Really, whatever department is prepared to adequately 
> fund the
> archaeologist to practice archaeology, using archaeological 
> methods, which
> in the case of historical archaeology also means using historical 
> sources,but most importantly, is prepared to fund archaeological 
> research and
> excavation and provide access to equipment, technology and 
further 
> training. Essentially an archaeologist should be able to practice 
> archaeologywherever they are based.
> 
> 
> Janice Adamson
> PhD Candidate University of Auckland
> 103 Connell Street
> Blockhouse Bay
> Auckland 1007
> New Zealand
> ph hm 09 6267860 mob 021 2869511
>