As Bob Schuyler points out, the question of whether historical
archaeology belongs to history or anthropology is hardly new,
though it seems to crop up again at frequent intervals. There is
no question, however, that historical archaeologists must be
trained in history, and the SHA has said as much on many occasions.
It is essential to be familiar with the primary documents relating
to one's research and know how to use them. Knowing the secondary
literature--and the controversies debated by historians--is just as
important.
The problem with student training is that there are very few genuine
"programs" in historical archaeology. In fact, when I was on the SHA
board, I objected to using that term in the title of our published
guide, which is now called the "Guide to Higher Education in
Historical Archaeology." In any case, there are fewer than 20
institutions listed each year that claim to offer the opportunity for
students to pursue a degree emphasizing historical archaeology. That
is a deplorable deficiency demanding remedy. The SHA should, indeed,
be a vocal advocate for a much stronger presence of trained
historical archaeologists on university faculties.
As acknowledged in the Student Forum panel discussions over the past
two SHA conferences, however, each individual must take some
responsibility for his or her own education. Coursework in history
may not be a degree requirement at some schools, but that does not
preclude one taking relevant classes as electives. A true program
would includ credits in a variety of related disciplines (including,
perhaps, geography, urban planning, architectural history, etc.), but
in the absence of such guidance each student must take the initiative
in consultation with his or her committee.
[log in to unmask]
|