I'll wade into this fray again-
 
In my view the discordance between archaeologists of the
historic period (trained largely in anthropology depts.) and
historians goes beyond method to the theorical grounding each
discipine instills in grad school.  Anthropological archaeology
is focused on sociocultural processes, in generalizing terms to
a greater or lesser degree, in contrast to a focus on
explanation found in the historical particulars of the given
set of events.  I think this is one reason we talk past each
other when we talk about the "significance" of a cultural
resource. As anthropologists, archaeologists see the potential
to learn about sociocultural process in almost every, and any,
cultural manifestation, while historians see significance in
terms of potential contribution to the understanding of broad
historical processes (contexts).
 
Pat O'Bannon and I used to work at the same consulting firm.
We were often frustrated with each other's inability to see
"past the end of our nose" as it were, when trying to work out
the relationships between the work in which each of us was
engaged.  The only way I've been able to make sense of this
with the passage of time, and the acceptance that each
discipline has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Each has its
own way of knowing the past that compliments and challenges the
other.
 
IMHO members of both disciplines need to be more open minded
and read outside their own field of training.
 
John P. McCarthy
Institute for Minnesota Archaeology/
IMA Consulting, Inc.