Recently, Melburn D. Thurman has argued that my handling of the James Mackay manuscript, an early 19th-century account of Plains native groups, is unsound. Many of Thurman's criticisms, specifically those concerning the date of the document, the details of Mackay's experience on the Missouri River, and the intent of my original article, stem from misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Thurman has refused, for example, to accept that my essay was a test of the document using archaeological data associated with the Arikara. In addition, Thurman portrays a narrow view of the past and a rather unique understanding of ethnohistorical methods. In this response to Thurman, I restate many of the points in my original article and provide an alternative perspective for studying the past.
