I didn't watch the show, but does it have to do with the recent findings?  I thought archeologists concluded a while back that this was an ancient burial site??

So basically the show was saying that what the drug addicts and witches do when they gather there now is the same as what the makers of Stonehendge did in the past?  Whatever.  ::)

Donald, I'm glad you reached a similar conclusion about the show as I did. I wasn't too happy with it and felt let down I guess, but on the other hand I really don't know what I expected.

To sum it all up, they offered an educated guess on what they thought happened.  It's a working hypothesis, but I really doubt it will hold up for long.  Too many holes in their thesis, and too much speculation on motives they have no way of recreating.  This is the very reason why I prefer History over Archaeology.  I don't like guessing games.  I prefer analyzing concrete sources and testimonies. 

Well, your statement seems a bit strange to me.  Don't you as a historian merely take and analyze many things that archaeology has provided for you?  Isn't it like the astrophysicist criticizing the rocket scientist? As far as I know it's not the archaeologists who have the job of making vast conclusions as much as they have the job of scouting sites, getting dirty and digging things up.  The historian doesn't dig things up but should have a much better grasp at macro-history on a number of different levels.  At least that is what I imagine it to be....it seems like archaeologists and historians really depend on each other, and rightly so.  But what you are saying sounds like you think the field is kind of a fluke.But I do agree with your sentiments about the conclusions on the show about Stonehenge...aren't you the one who said some of those wild conclusions on TV are because of ratings? 

Archaeology has been hijacked by Darwinianism to the point that, they automatically assume evolutionary principles that may or may not apply to every situation. 

I very much disagree. The only time you see this evolution stuff is in the study of early man. You shouldn't be so against anthropology and archeology. If anything, those are two highly important and neccessary disciplines for studying history.  I don't think you can even touch ancient (at least) history without a background in those two fields. There's no way one can study history without archeological or anthropological evidence.  There would be nothing to study unless you only want to go back a millenium.

From my own limited experience, I see them working together in some major ways all the time. I don't see them seperated.  I'm impressed enough to want to learn more about the 2 A's so I can be a better historian.

Hand a few shovels to the historians!  Let them do the leg work and then come to conclusions based on their own findings. 

I'm sort of surprised you're saying they don't. I don't want to learn about a country's history from just books.  Give me some hiking shoes and a backpack (and a 1911). I have a culture to study!

I would say that History and Archeology are complementary but separate disciplines.  I agree with ski here.  Ancient and medieval history would be impossible without archeology.  Archaeology is also indispensable with more recent events too.  It is one thing to read something in a book or an archive, it is another thing entirely to handle the things the actors used or to walk the ground they trod.  My specialty is military history and I am convinced that it is impossible to understand any battle without fully understanding the effects of the weapons used and walking the ground where the battle was fought.  I though I understood Waterloo and the implications of the defense of Hougemont until I went to the battlefield and saw how truly decisive the British retention of that Chateau was.  Similarly, no serious student of the Civil War can fully understand the fog of war without first hand experience of how tremendously smoky 19th century and earlier battlefields were.  A trip to any reenactment will give one a pretty good idea of the chaos that reigned on battlefields then, it is amazing commanders had as good a grasp of events as they did.So yes, I would say that archeology is necessary and should be distinct.  I think Don is confusing the practitioners with the craft.  The New Left is doing their best to hijack all academic disciplines, it is our duty as historians and academics to ensure that academic rigour is continued and to expose those with a political agenda in their scholarship.  I for one, think scholars should be apolitical in their work.