In a message dated 4/10/99 7:05:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< just something that came up in relation to a lecture by a historian here in
 dresden: just how much interplay is there between historians and
archaeologists
 elsewhere? as in: do the historians use our information or otherwise take us
 seriously, or do they just sort of continue plodding along with their
 documentary evidence r.e. founding of towns/cities/whatever, regardless of
what
 our evidence says to the contrary?
  >>

These are my observations about this interesting topic which, I believe, does
not receive enough attention.  While I am sure there are some historians who
do pay attention to the findings of archaeologists as it relates to the
historic record and topics upon which they are writing and researching, I'm
afraid the overall record is more dismal than that.  In my opinion,
archaeologists, in general, pay far more attention to what historians have
said than visa-versa.  Other than quite broad thinking historians and the
cross-breed historian/archaeologists in our midsts, historians do not seem to
find value in material culture findings of archaeologists.  They don't seem
to feel that archaeologists can help them better understand the history of a
place, a people, a factory, a community.

I continue to see histories written throughout Utah and the Intermountain
area which take no note of historical archaeology reports which I am aware of
that contain information which could be of great value to historians in
understanding their topic.  The reasons for this are probably many.  Perhaps
we have not worked hard enough to let them know what we have to offer.
Perhaps many of them don't believe there is another body of information out
there which is important enough to add to what they already have to say.

I will be interested to hear from others, especially public historians and
other historians who may be on this list.

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah