In Britain there has been a long tradition of mainly medieval economic
historians and archaeologists working in co-operation sine the late 40s
and 50s. Rodney Hilton at Birmingham was a key influence and created a
post in medieval archaeology within the history department. This has
influenced Birmingham medievalists ever since. Prof Chris Dyer, an
economic and  social historian at Birmingham is now the current
president of the Society for medieval archaeology. Maurice Beresford,
another economic historian, also worked closely with an archaeologist
John Hurst on deserted villages especially the decades long excavation
at Wharram Percy. In post-medieval archaeology, David Crossley, another
economic historian, was another leading light. In the 1970s and 1980s
several archaeology units employed brilliant historians such as David
Roffe at Stamford and Derek Keene at Winchester which produced some
classic studies of interaction between the two disciplines. Sadly with
commercialisation and smaller projects the norm those days are in
decline. This close relationship between history and archaeology can
also be found in many continental countries. Many post-medievalists also
received their primary training like myself in medieval studies. As a
result there are many archaeologists especially with a PhD level
academic training in both documentary history and archaeology in N.W.
Europe. Of course the majority of people who work or research in this
field either had their academic training in other subjects or their
archaeological training ended at the Roman or migration period. There is
little tradition in Europe being an offshoot of anthropology except for
the university department at Cambridge where students study both subject
jointly in their first year. There has been some tension in recent years
with the advent of more theoretical approaches in archaeology. Some
people seem happy to combine these with a traditional historical
approach while others have suggested that history merely hinders
archaeology. However, I have just attended a  weekend conference on
medieval towns in Oxford which showed a fruitful interaction between
historians, archaeologists and modern theory. In the US cultural
anthropology has been clearly anti-historical in some of its
manifestations which has not always helped interaction between the two
disciplines. However, the work of Kathleen Deagan with Hispanic
historians (eg in her Puerto Real_ book) and such studies as those In
_Documentary Archaeology in the New World_ ed. by Mary Beaudry show that
that equally excellent studies in the US. Landscape history -a key area
of interdisciplinary meeting- also seems to be taking off in the States
after a slow start compared with the UK. Yes historians generally ignore
archaeology but with my historians hat on I can sy that most
archaeologists simplistic grasp of history on both sides of the Atlantic
is equally appalling. There is a very wide gulf between worst and best
practice.


paul courtney Leicester (UK)

In message <[log in to unmask]>, Iain Stuart
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Mail*Link® SMTP               Historians and hisorical archaeology
>
>The situation in Australia at a general level is pretty much the same the
>historians largely ignore archaelogy to consentrate on their post-modern
>histories of of leather jackets in the 1950's or some such. When they turn
>their
>gaze to historical archaeology they are distainfull or jealous (especially when
>they find out the cost of excavations). And guess what many historical
>archaeogists panic! "Oh the historians don't like us" they mone and run around
>trying to show historians how usefull we can be.
>
>Iain Stuart
>University of Sydney

Paul Courtney
Leicester UK