There are two issues here:
 
1. The breadth or narrowness of the listserver called HISTARCH.
2. The definition of the field called historical archaeology.
 
Regarding issue #1, there are other listservers dedicated to various
specialties in Classical, Middle Eastern, etc. archaeology. So if the
dialogue on HISTARCH is used by these other specialties, then HISTARCH
would have to be reincarnated by someone elsewhere. I believe the
listowner has set the parameters of this group and she should perhaps
speak up again. We get newcomers and lurkers who may not understand what
the purpose of the list is: to discuss historical archaeology. We need a
forum to discuss New World historical sites and similar sites elsewhere
in the world, postdating the late 15th century.
 
Biblical Archaeology uses the Bible which is largely, in terms of Old
Testament, a collection of oral histories recorded centuries after the
event. Having used oral history extensively in several cultures I can
state with considerable authority that while it provides one perspective
on past reality, it is a most imperfect one if the person telling the
story being recorded was not the witness to the event. Every generation
which passes the story on changes it. So the Old Testament is of dubious
value as an historical document. Furthermore, quite a few of the Biblical
archaeologists I have talked with at the Albright Institute in Jerusalem
and elsewhere are trying to "prove" the Bible, not use it as a supportive
text. This kind of mindset is not likely to produce results having much
scientific merit, for in their efforts to prove something they are likely
to overlook the very evidence which would disprove it. I even met one
graduate student in Israel who was searching for Adam's skull!  I am sure
that there are many fine Biblical archaeologists out there who are not
like that crackpot or the others discussed above and are contributing
greatly to our understanding of this period. I seriously question whether
they have any interest in learning about Merida ware, creamware, military
buttons, or machine-made bricks. If so, they can subscribe to HISTARCH. I
am sure that they would not appreciate my posting a bibliography on US
military clothing to a listserver for Greco-Roman architecture or
whatever.
 
Eliott Braun's posting of Israel antiquarianism is equally unwelcome by
historical archaeologists. If I want that kind of information, I
subscribe to some other list. If Eliott Braun is capable of having
original thoughts instead of unethically posting other's ideas and
correspondence (including one which had already been posted to HISTARCH)
and if he actually knows something about historical archaeology, I hope
he will share his ideas with all of us.
 
QUESTION: Did a single Biblical archaeologist attend a single session or
paper presented on historical archaeology when the Society for Historical
Archaeology joined those folk for the World Archaeology Congress in
Baltimore in 1989? I doubt it. Did an historical archaeologist attend
their sessions? Yes. I did.
 
Regarding issue #2, indeed, let us have a scholarly debate on the merits
of broadening historical archaeology. I agree that researchers who must
use documents and reconcile them with archaeological data have
theoretical and methodological issues in common, no matter what language
or alphabet is used. Surely cross-fertilization would do some good.
Perhaps there should be a forum for "documentary archaeology." But just
because documents are used does not make it historical archaeology. Do we
wish to subsume the archaeology of all literate cultures into one giant
field? What could we possibly gain by such action? Personally, I like the
idea of its touchstone being the archaeology of colonialism in the
post-Columbian or modern world.
 
 I have directed research within that colonial topic in six countries
now: USA, Canada, Israel, Rep. of Marshall Islands, Fed. States of
Micronesia, and Rep. of  Palau. The colonial powers being investigated
were English, French, Spanish, American, and Japanese. The native peoples
being studied were Native Americans, Bedouin, Marshallese, Yapese,
Palauan. The sites dated from the early 1500s to World War II
fortifications. No one can rightfully accuse me of narrowing the
definition of historical archaeology, for during the past 30 years I have
been a pioneer in pushing the envelope away from famous sites and famous
people and towards the comprehensive understanding of social history for
the common folk. To this end, in 1972, my research team investigated
Silcott, an early 20th century farming community in Washington state. In
that classic study we demonstrated conclusively that an archaeological
study of sites which had been occupied as little as forty years earlier
was not only a valid approach, but one which yielded great insight into
American life and insight which could not be gained from other sources
alone. The Antique Air Project a few years later demonstrated to
atmospheric scientists that archaeology could provide them with baseline
data for several kinds of studies for air pollution. Twenty years later
scientists are still relying on archaeological specimens for this kind of
data. While other historical archaeologists focused their attention on
excavating a famous person's house, simply because of its aura of
historicity, I spent my time research poor farmers in the Northwest and
Southeast. At Waverly Plantation we demonstrated that the archaeology of
African-American tenant farmers was a worthwhile endeavor. At Bay Springs
Mill in northeastern Mississippi we excavated an industrial site--a
cotton mill--as well as the domestic structures associated with it.
 
At Waverly, Bay Springs, and Silcott, the approach was holistic and
synergistic by using documents, oral history, and archaeology to study an
entire community, not just an isolated site. That kind of approach too
was pushing the envelope at a time when most historical archaeologists
were focusing their attention on single sites. So, during this period I
have been actively extending the definition of historical to include: (1)
late 19th and 20th century sites; (2) sites of middle class and poor
people; (3) sites of ethnic groups other than the dominant one; (4) other
parts of the world than simply North America; (5) increased reliance on
detailed oral histories and documentary evidence. I am, therefor, quite
willing to expand the definition of historical archaeology, if it can be
justified.
 
So, show me that the current definition needs to be modified and provide
the justification for doing so. Merely expanding it to include whatever
you are doing, simply because the phrase "historical archaeology" rolls
smoothly off the tongue, is not sufficient reason.