Whatever, the general picture historians and archaeologists can work
well together when they want to. There are plenty of historians I know
who think archaeology is a waste of time (but then I think they are a
waste of space) but many others who are at least sympathetic. I cannot
see why anyone would want to work on the archaeology of historic periods
who has no interest in history. The joy is surely being able to utilise,
compare and contrast the widest range of sources to fill out the
picture. The French Annales concept of 'total history' is probably
unobtainable in reality but still a philosophical goal worth striving
for. The best historical archaeology is that which uses both documents
and material evidence in a sophisticated and interactive way whether by
individuals or teams. We should be aiming to emulate the best not
worrying about that a few historians can't see past the end of their
nose or institutional differences which originate in academic power
games. True interdisciplinary research is invariably on the cutting edge
but can be a lonely and friendless place to be.
Paul Courtney
Leicester UK