Bill Frazer wrote:
....much snippetage..."It would also include familiarity with
heoretical debates in the US, which Dan Mouer seems to imply those of
us not working in the States right now lack. Many of us don't"
 
....more brilliant words callously deleted.
 
Yow, Bill. Please don't put words in my mouth. Truth is, I feel that
British and European archaeology is, generally speaking, lightyears
beyond most American archaeology in theory, thanks in large measure to
the pervasive influence of culture studies and the more widespread
adoption of various interpretations of Marxism and structuralism by
British and Continental scholars. My reference was to specific work
which has been strongly represented in historical archaeology,
especially feminist perspectives, consumerism studies, and that
peculiarly American form of interpretivism that descends from Dewey,
Geertz, etc.. I was responding, as you recall, to a representation by
your British colleague of the theoretical vacuum in which much work is
apparently done in great Britain. I would direct many of my US and
Canadian colleagues to that same literature if they are not familiar
with it. Unfortunately, a l;ack of theoretical sophistication is
common in all archaeology, but those most guilty thereof are not going
to read long posts on the subject like mine and yours. We're preaching
to the choir.
 
Dan M