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]