Ian, I just finished my M.A. last August.  My undergraduate degree was in
anthropology/history with an emphasis on archeology.  I did not go to
graduate school until several years later.  Which gave me plenty of time to
work in archeology and not only apply, but the opportunity to study
archeological methods.  My graduate degree is in Public History with my
thesis on historical archeology.  Although archeology is not technically a
part of the degree program at the University of Arkansas (Little Rock), the
program chair alowed me to do my thesis on archeology as long as there was
an historical aspect to it.  Another part of the program requirements was an
internship.  They also alowed me to do an internship in historical
archeology under "Skip" Abernathy in Russelville, Ar.  My point is that,
although undergraduate programs can introduce a student to historical
methods, it is in the graduate program that research methods (both
historical and archeological) are stressed.  What is needed in training
future historical archeologists are more flexible programs that will allow a
student to experiance both.  In undergrade programs advisors should stress
to to students that taking a few years off between degrees to work in the
field will impart knowledge that can't be learned in school or place
stronger emphasis on intern programs.  The angle of approach for both
research methods are different, but can be combined into a beneficial
learning experiance for the student if the program and the instructors are
flexible enough to let each individual explore areas of intrest within the
universities graduate guidelines.  I'm not sure if this opinion will help,
but there it is.

William McAlexander
AHTD
Little Rock, Arkansas

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Stuart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 6:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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.