> historians are actually a
> subset of archaeologists (a subject about which I
> have had a number of
> debates with my other half, a history graduate.
Can't possibly be! Historians existed for a very long
time before archaeologists.
The main difference between historians and
archaeologists is that historians get dusty finding
their source material, and archaeologists get muddy
Now that's settled, the next question is which
discipline is superior! (It is Friday!)
Art historian and historian