To HISTARCH
 
As a person trained in both history and historical archeology, and who
has also tried, with little or no sucess to enlighten both the SHA and
my employer on  what could be  done to improve relationships between historians
and archeologists for the common benefit of all,  let me stir nthe pot
a bit on this one.
 
I am not so encouraged about the state of affairs as the author of this
message.   When I meet  people  who have gone through the PhD in Anthro
tell me they have had no training in history and then claim that they are
historical archeologists (that seems at least a little arrogant to me);
 when I meet prominent Federal  agency archeologists who go to a professional
historian's meeting and say that history has no relationship to historical
archeology  (that one took guts, anyway);  when I hear archeologists say
that historians are particularistic but who cannot, themselves, use historical
information in any way except as sources of names and dates rather then
as a way of  helping them interpret their finds  so as to put  their work
into a more meaning full context instead of just publishing reports of
the types and numbers of artifacts found;  when I see CRM consulting firms
run by archeologists with company names like "Historical Consultants, Inc."
but who do not  have a single historian on their staff  then I must confess
to having  my doubts.