To HISTARCH As a person trained in both history and historical archeology, and who has also tried, with little or no sucess to enlighten both the SHA and my employer on what could be done to improve relationships between historians and archeologists for the common benefit of all, let me stir nthe pot a bit on this one. I am not so encouraged about the state of affairs as the author of this message. When I meet people who have gone through the PhD in Anthro tell me they have had no training in history and then claim that they are historical archeologists (that seems at least a little arrogant to me); when I meet prominent Federal agency archeologists who go to a professional historian's meeting and say that history has no relationship to historical archeology (that one took guts, anyway); when I hear archeologists say that historians are particularistic but who cannot, themselves, use historical information in any way except as sources of names and dates rather then as a way of helping them interpret their finds so as to put their work into a more meaning full context instead of just publishing reports of the types and numbers of artifacts found; when I see CRM consulting firms run by archeologists with company names like "Historical Consultants, Inc." but who do not have a single historian on their staff then I must confess to having my doubts.