Iain and all:

I sort of fell into archaeology after taking a couple of intro to arch
courses for my bachelor's at St. Cloud State in Minn.  I had originally
started as a history major and the two just seem to fit together for me.
But I must admit that my undergraduate degree was in anthropology, mostly
cultural anth at that.  I did not get much "history theory" from the anth
dept, nor vice versa.  But the school was small and there probably wasn't
much call for an overlap.

I would say that larger schools who specifically state historical
archaeology as a program should include historical research and threory as
part of the program requirements.  And that anyone interested in historical
archeology should make the effort to at least include some history courses
or do a history minor, even if the school does not require them.

Or are we belaboring a point that should be obvious to all?  Historical
archaeology is a combination of two disciplines - duh?  Take coures in both
disciplines.

This discussion Iain initiated seems to also fit with a current discussion
on the Arch-L listserv about the decline of the 4-field anth. teachings at
universities.  While I was exposed to the 4-field paradigm,our undergraduate
courses were pretty limited and dominated by cultural anth theory classes
and physical anth.  I don't think any linguistic classes were even offered
when I attended.
-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000 6:33 PM
Subject: Teaching Historical Archaeology?


>Teaching Historical Archaeology?
>
>I was just reading through the winter SHA Newsletter (Vol 32 no 4) when I
>came across the sections Teaching Historical Archaeology. Does anyone have
>any problems with the papers reproduced there?
>
>While I agree with much that is discussed my main concern is the emphasis
on
>anthropology particularly in the paper "Teaching Archaeology in the 21st
>Century: Thoughts on Graduate Education". Here the ideal prospective grad
>student should have a strong background in anthropology and go on to do
>further work in anthropology (yes Virginia I know Americans say
>"anthropology" when they mean "archaeology").
>
>But,  where does a background in history (or for that matter cultural or
>historical geography) fit in? Surely some exposure to the study of history
>is essential for a budding historical archaeologist and something that SHA
>should be pushing instead of more and more anthropology. It seems that the
>end result might be that historical archaeologists will be able to tell a
>Folsom from a Clovis point but not a primary from a secondary document!
>
>Moreover, I wonder if this state of affairs might contribute to the general
>unease concerning the role of history in historical archaeology (as often
>discussed in this forum) and the naivete that historians often find in
>historical archaeology? Maybe historical archaeologists are not being
>adequately trained in methods and practice of historical research? If this
>is so then the SHA should be addressing this issue rather than seeming to
go
>along with the SAA whose interests are obviously different.
>
>I would be interested if anyone else has similar thoughts on this matter.