I thought that you all might be interested in a student
perspective.  I majored in history as an undergraduate and am currently
in graduate school to get a degree in historical archaeology.
    As a history major, I took approximately 10-15 history courses.  I
took a variety of courses in world history, Greek history, English
history, American history, African-American history and women's
studies.  In looking back on my professors' lectures, I would have to
say that there seemed to be a general lack of awareness of archaeology.
Only one professor, who taught Greek History, actually used sites and
archaeological assemblages to illustrate his points.  One other
professor did attend anthropological conferences, but if she did pick up
any archaeology, it did not particularly spill over into her lectures.
     I have to say in defense of my professors that I understand why
more archaeology was not included in my education.  They needed to
present a sweeping overview of the events that occurred in a certain
place and time, to explain how these events shaped people's lives and
cultures, and to drill the historical method into their pupils heads --
the main focus was to teach how to collect and analyze documentary
evidence and how to write about it.  Furthermore, I suspect that our
work is not very visible to other disciplines.  As Rick Afflick pointed
out, most of our papers are difficult to obtain and quite technical for
those unfamiliar with the field.  A few people have produced quite
readable texts for the public, but these are often either narratives in
which it is difficult to separate fact from fiction or very general
overviews of lots of sites with little detail regarding what we have
discovered at any particular place or on any particular subject (with
some notable exceptions, of course).  I also suspect that archaeologists
rarely make a point to publish articles in history journals, being more
concerned with the reactions of their own peers.  Frequently the best
public-oriented information on our goals and discoveries appears in the
newspapers (but then, we all know how shallow and inaccurate journalism
can occasionally be).
   I don't think the majority of my professors would have been closed to
utilizing our work,  if they  been more informed about it.  Overall,
they seemed to be interested in developing a material culture approach.
By that, I mean they were open to using objects such as photographs and
artwork and probate records listing material goods in their analyses.
This is one step in the interdisciplinary direction. I also maintained a
correspondence with one of my African-American history professors who
wanted to know more about the findings at a dig I was involved with on a
slave cabin.  My Greek history professor, furthermore, was quite
knowledgeable about archaeology and gave me a variety of helpful
suggestions on how to get involved in the field when I expressed an
interest.
    I guess the point I am trying to make with all of this is that if my
experience is anything to go by, an entirely new generation of history
students is coming into the profession basically ignorant of how we
work, the kinds of questions we ask, what our findings can offer them,
and where they can find our resources.  I am encouraged by the extent of
public outreach that is being done at the elementary and secondary
school levels.  A lot of archaeologists are currently exposing these
inquiring young minds to our work.  But what efforts have we made to
expose professors and students  at the university level?  These are the
professionals who will be shaping the history discipline for some time
to come.

Andrea Clark
The College of William & Mary