I agree with Iain that having a background in History as well as
Anthropology is very important for a Historical Archaeologist.  I have known
several individuals working in Histroical Archaeology that have little or no
knowledge of historical research.  While an Anthropology background is
needed, so is a Historical background.

I have degrees in both and I am finishing my doctorate in History/Historical
Archaeology here at the University of Idaho.  The joint program is designed
to give the student a background and an understanding of both fields.  We
need more interaction between these and other departments in order to make
our students well reounded, which makes them better Historical
Archaeologists.  Hopefully more programs of this type will be started.

Kenneth Faunce
University of Idaho
-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000 4:31 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.
>