On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, L. D Mouer wrote:
 
> Kevin,
>
> American prehistory seems to be one of the last great strongholds of
> pseudo-neo-positivism, for sure (although I know of plenty of British
> and Aussie prehistorians who fill the bill). I don't think the
> difference in historical archaeology all has to do with being "self
> cricital," or with the influences of Mark leone and Randy McGuire,
> though they are certainly important. Despite our training as
> anthropologists, we are strongly influenced by history, a humanitites
> approach. And don't forget the influences of people like Noel Hume,
> Fairbanks, and--maybe above all--Jim Deetz. Historical archaeology
> certainly has its scientistic practitioners, but our intellectual
> debts also run to people like Collingswood. In some ways, the influx
> of scientifically trained, but humanistically inclined archaeologists
> into our field over the past 15 years has made it a far more
> interesting place to work.
>
> Dan Mouer
>
 
Dr. Mouer-
 
Thank you very much for your thoughful reply. In my anthropological
immersion, I have the tendency to forget that Deetz' image of holding the
past in your hand was a big part of my decision to come into this field.
I also think that the use of the imagination is critical in our line of
work and that those who hide their imagination behind the cloak of
scientific knowledge tend to miss the point of self-critique. I am
reminded of the old sage who told us not to "retreat into timid
equivocation." I think our discipline is a much better place for heeding
this advice.
 
La lucha continua,
Kevin M. Bartoy.