re: HA in the academy and elssewhere
 
I am not sure it will get much better.
 
Having been a faculty member in
an Anthropology department, an American Studies
Program, an African American Studies department
and a history department my outlook is
based on academic teaching and student interest.
 
Student interest for an introduction to historical archaeology and
material culture study is at an all time high.
Yet, academic opportunities for professional HA's are
scattered and uncertain. Like McKee has mentioned, there have
been some open positions listed in the last couple years but these
opportunities are not based on any measured growth
in the desire for institutions to want historical archaeology as
a permanent concentration.
Many advertised positions have been leave replacements (to bring in a
different set of courses temporarily) and a couple positions
have been refills of senior positions at
tenure track junior levels for leaving senior archaeologists.
 
This last scenario has been by far the rarest.
I think (but have no data) that more often than not
senior positions in the social sciences are being eliminated
and the FTE's reallocated to the life sciences. My wife is a
biologist and I get a different set of observations through
position searches that she and her colleaques have been through.
Of course, someone should study this HA position
decline/rise in comparison to other social sciences/life
sciences with real facts.
 
Teaching it...
 
Historical archaeology courses are seen as elective
by many smaller colleges. There is much general student interest
(i.e. course enrollments) but proportionately less continuation to
the next level of thesis/independent study/concentration.
 
Then, there are the "pure" anthropology departments
that believe their single focus should be socio-cultural.
We all know how amusing it is to mention to our socio-cultural
colleaques that we look at more than just tins cans and
that we have read Levi Strauss and Foucault.
 
Also there is a natural competition for lab space, student labor
and "dean support" when you are being considered by
a department that is "directed" by tenured prehistorians.
My impression is that prehistorians don't follow the HA
literature although we are represented at SAA...
 
Thus, some departments send their students
to another neigboring school that
has an historical archaeology course.
Sometimes there is even a traveling assistant professor
that does the local rounds and teaches the
same HA course at two or three institutions in the same city.
I have seen both of these situations first hand.
 
On the side.....
 
There seems to be a parallel here in industry.
Many companies are downsizing to protect a product focus
in the face of an unpredictable market. Computer companies
are contracting out (called outsourcing) for services such as
documentation/publishing, human resources, even legal counsel
without committing long term resources (in this case employees)
to these essential parts of the business.
I think anthro/history/AmCiv departments are just doing this.. outsourcing or
covering their student interests with us.. how can we change that
mentalite'  ?? Should we? how can we charge more when our labs and fields
are staffed with volunteers??
 
Historical Archaeology elsewhere..
 
The proliferation of historical archaeologists
in industry and the volume of excellent
work that has been done is encouraging. Even school kids
have mini courses and archaeology workbooks now.. and local preservation
(although legislatively weak against development and
decreasing neighborhood tax bases) is now a strong local
lobby in suburban America. Thats the good news...
 
One problem of that proliferation, however,
is the amount of historical archaeological research
that is not excellent. There is an increasing amount
of redundant and pedantic work that tells us what
a history book or document already did more elegantly.
Believe me this does not go unnoticed..
 
And what about the particularlist histories of objects
and their use by people in the past and the " use" of
this scholarship for people today?
Many of us have tried to tie the object to the human mind,
or ethnic identity or some sort of socio-paleopathic
epi-phenomenon. How important are those findings and
are they more than curios in our materialist narrative?
 
Lastly.. dare I mention it.. is the politicization of HA
research as well as HA interpretations about past communities.
I think this may divide archaeologists within the field in the worst
way and may further weaken our standing with the public. We need to
remove the emotion from the MOTIVATION for our interpretations.
We also need to learn to stand together. Maybe a start for this is less
SHA paper givers and more listening and discussion each January at the
annual meetings. (I have made a personal committment to give
a paper only every other year if I have something to say.)
 
About "using" historical archaeology
 
I asked a colleague (a black assistant professor in History) after a
lecture I gave, what he thought about the new sub-field of African American arch
aeology.
His reponse was interesting to me.
He said.. black people and others need a useable history
today.. not one that was made accurate by historical or
archaeological minutae but one that could be passed on as a
social fact. Since the public pays for most of
HA through taxes etc..and tax money and our image as professionals
are uniquely connected in our society...
maybe our worries lie not with the academy
but with a public audience that is questioning the long term
useability of and investment in our scholarship.
 
 
just some thoughts... opinions.. I'm listening..
flames are childish..
 
Thanks.
 
 
Matthew Emerson