As a historical archaeologist who began as a prehistorian, I find knowledge 
of and collaboration with colleagues in history to add another rewarding 
dimension to the study of the past.   It is rather like beginning to see a two 
dimensional scene in three dimensions (or a black-and-white scene in color). Yes, 
we all have our shortcomings.   Historians tend to focus on the broader picture 
or on specific individuals, while we tend to focus on things that were often 
taken for granted at the time and thus not noted in documents (types of 
tableware used, how waste was disposed, the details of technology. etc.).   
Occasionally, the archaeologist is rewarded by working with materials that can be 
associated with particular historical individuals.   Then we begin to understand 
the historians point of view.   When we discover data, we are quick to accept 
it as "self-evident" rather than as a matter of interpretation (this is why it 
is always wise to separate the data from the interpretation, so the "baby is 
not later discarded with the bathwater").   Historians have long known that 
documents are seldom self-evident and must be critically evaluated (who wrote 
them?, for whom?, for what purpose?).   In recent years, collaboration on 
interdisciplinary teams of historians and others has proven to be very fruitful for 
all of us.   Much of this has been the results of required cultural resource 
studies.

Bob Hoover


**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in 
just 2 easy steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D66807
2%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)