Gaye, Keith, points well taken.

My question, however, is that if archaeology is not a set of techniques, but a
discipline in and of itself, that raises different questions from those of
historians, anthropologists, etc., then why are we not an independent
academic/scientific field in the great majority of universities here in North
America?  The truth is we ARE housed in the anthropology departments, and it
seems to me that what we are discussing here is whether that is adequate enough
for what we are trying to accomplish as historical archaeologists.

I would completely agree that archaeologists raise different questions than
their historian colleagues, yet I would submit that most of our questions (and
therefore interpretations) are anthropological in nature.  If this is true, then
why are we often so uncomfortable in the anthro. departments?  If anthropology
is the study of the culture of man, as I have been taught, then archaeology in
my mind certainly falls under its umbrella.  Personally, I have no problem
calling myself an anthropologist in the making, nor receiving a degree in
"anthropology: emphasis in archaeology."  After all, I believe it is past
peoples and lifeways that we are interested in.  To me, that IS anthropology.
The beautiful thing is that we can use the historical resources available to
better piece together the picture.  That's what I love about historical
archaeology.  It is an opportunity to use the best of two fields to come to a
more complete and thorough understanding of our principal objectives.