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.