I submit this rather hesitantly because I feel no more than a peon with a very
fresh BA.  But, I would like to present what was presented to me in a Historical
Archaeology Seminar course I took last year at Brigham Young University.  We
spent the entire semester reading articles, papers, etc. from the 60s and 70s,
when HA was really beginning to seek an identity, and this same debate was at
the forefront of it all.  After having waded through this material, my
colleagues and I came away with general impression that "archaeology" in its
strictest sense is nothing more than a technique, a systematic way to remove
earth, artifacts, etc. from a particular site.  Hence, there are people trained
in any number of fields (or none at all) participating in excavations/field
schools around the world; and most do just fine.  Of course, the more experience
they have the better they are.  But, where the intellect truly becomes important
is in the interpretation of what is excavated.  Most are thinking right now,
duh? of course!  Yet, I really believe the issue is this simple.  Now, the
interpretation of artifacts etc. may not be (and often isn't) a very simple
task.  Thus, we do need to be well rounded academically.  In the end, it may be
that our historical training proves to be just as important as our
anthropological, or vice versa.  I suppose it is a project-specific issue.
Regardless, however, of where we belong in the universities, I must strongly
agree that students should be encouraged to expand their studies as they wish,
especially at the graduate level.  If I am representative in any way of most
soon to be grad students, then I can say that I have a passion for the 19th
century American west/midwest.  And I love to read history about that era, just
as much as I love to scour through old newspapers on microfilm for hours on end.
(My first experience in excavating a site from this period will come this
summer, so I can't say I love that just as much yet, but I believe it will be
just as engaging as I imagine it to be--in fact I know it will be if that's what
I want it to be).  Anyway, now that I have completely rambled my way into a
position I hadn't planned on going into, I will end by saying that certainly we
must find our niche in the academic universe.  But, whether that be ultimately
with anthropology, history, or something else, I don't know.  But, one thing
that I have been taught, and tend to agree with, is that "archaeology" is not
academic discipline in the same way I view anthropology or history being.  It is
a "field discipline", a set of methods and tools we use to extract the data that
truly is the focus of our academic energies.
        Now if that made any sense at all, I do not know.  Yet I await your responses
with an open mind and ready to learn!


                                                        Benjamin Pykles
                                                        (soon to be PhD student at UPENN)