The Department of Archaeology at Boston University offers a course in
"Documentary Archaeology" on a regular basis for its students/graduate
students.  The course covers the practical aspects of how to do documentary
research, understanding and interpretation of the contents of primary and
secondary source material, and direct examples of the use of documentary
research in historic archaeology.  I liked the course so much, I took it once
for credit under one professor and second time under another.  The point of
all of this is to show that  the situation with regard to the role of history
in the education of the archaeologist is not completely in retreat
everywhere.

I might add that, as a graduate student in the department, I was actively
encouraged to take courses in any department.  I took courses in the
Anthropology and American Studies departments.  Others I knew took courses in
History, Biology, Economics, Classics, and African Studies depending upon
their research interests.  A graduate department (whether anthropology,
archaeology, geology, or history) that discourages a students from taking
advantage of any educational opportunity, should re-examine their raison
d'etre.

Also, I question the validity of this debate for graduate level education.
Anyone with even a passing interesting in the field of historical archaeology
has only to read a single article in HA to know that documentary research and
interpretation of primary and secondary source material is, and always will
be, an integral part of their profession.  If they allow themselves to be
discouraged from obtaining the training necessary to do this by their
department, they aren't going to last very long in the "real" world.  The
obstacles they will encounter there will be considerably higher, such as a
complete lack of funding to underwrite such work so "unnecessary" to
accomplishing a contract archaeology project.

L. A. Mead