California developed an integrated inventory system in the early 1990s that 
uses a single set of recording forms to record all built and archaeological 
elements of a resource under a single numbering system.  The manual and 
forms can be accessed at the California Office of Historic Preservation web 
site.  The system merged formerly separate recording and numbering systems 
(the former numbering systems have been maintained for continuity).

The idea was to address the disconnect between the disciplines.  An 
interdiciplinary team developed the system.  Twenty years later, there does 
seem to be a lot more awareness and interaction across the disciplines. 
However, it has been a much steeper slope to convince historians and 
architectural historians that historical archaeology actually adds something 
meaningful to the record.

The common refrain we have all heard from those sister disciplines is: can 
historical archaeology really make substantive (non-trivial) contributions 
to history?  That has had the beneficial effect of forcing historical 
archaeologists to demonstrate more clearly the value of their work. 
Contextualizing our research is all very nice, but it won't change the 
opinions of historians until the archaeology itself plays a central role in 
our interpretations.

Even more interesting is the issue of evaluating structural ruins and 
cultural landscapes, which are another productive intersection of the 
disciplines.  Collaboration has become the norm for those types of 
reasources and that has resulted in the greatest convergence (not always 
harmonic, but a good dialog in any case).

Thad Van Bueren