Several people responded to my confusion over the difference between a study of "historical fact" and "human behavior."
    George pointed out that archaeology sometimes brings in environmental data that may seem to have little or nothing to do with individual people.  However, both anthropological and historical applications of such "historical facts" (whether gleaned from historical documents or from core samples) would be used to discover new information about human behavior.  How did the weather affect the economy, the food utilization patterns, or the mobility of a given group of people at a given time?  To my mind the real difference between the two approaches
in this example would be that anthropologists would be more likely to make cross-cultural or global comparisons between how different cultures adapt to changes in weather patterns.  But in both cases it would be the modifications of human behavior that was of interest.
    Diane argued that the main difference lies in the fact that historians use documents and that archaeologists use material culture, stratigraphy, and so forth to interpret the past and that these resources yield very different sorts of data.  This is a very valid and important point.  But if we accept the fact that both documents and assemblages yield "historical facts" and that both fields could use both kinds of data interchangeably for comparative purposes, wherein lies the real difference?  Again, it all amounts to a study of human behavior.
    Jorge's distinction does make sense.  Are we comparing the archaeological data with the historical record in order to revise and interpret written cultural history, or are we using the historical data as a secondary resource and a means of understanding what is occurring on an individual site?  He argues that in both instances students need to learn how to interpret both types of data, historical and archaeological.  I would agree with this, but am not sure whether it is important which way we use the data, as both approaches yield interesting
and applicable results.  I suppose it depends to a large extent whether one's primary focus is in writing a site report or an academic paper, and of course on the research questions.  I would hope that advocates of both approaches would look at the "big picture" as well as the "little picture" - what is happening on an individual site and how that information adds to our knowledge of history and culture, and how people experienced life at least regionally, if not nationally and globally.
    I think it is fair to say that I did misunderstand Jorge's original point, and appreciate the responses to my query.  As an archaeologist with a degree in history and an (almost complete) graduate education in archaeology from an anthro. department, these fine divisions between the two fields do not come naturally to me.
    With my background, I must of course agree with those arguing that an inclusion of history courses in historical archaeology programs is absolutely essential.  In the field and in the lab, I personally also feel the lack of courses in geology, architecture, and computer science, art, and chemistry.  All those who pointed out that students need to take responsibility for their own educational programs and shape them with specific career goals in mind are correct.  What really strikes me, however, is the number of highly-educated professionals who
obviously feel dissatisfied with the limitations of their educations.  People can't stay in university forever.  What can we (or the SHA or whoever) do to help those who are out of school and still find gaps in their knowledge?  Should we post reading lists on a variety of subfields?  Host workshops?  Establish a series of distance reading groups to discuss various themes?  This list serve, journals, and conferences help a lot, but there's still a need to address the educational gaps not only of students, but also of practicing archaeologists.

Andrea Clark

>