Good idea Ned...but I can envision the arguments already.  Just in our
county (San Diego) alone...we can hardly ever get two archys to agree on
terminology.  I don't know if it's partly an ego thing...or what...but most
seem to want to Do it Their way...instead of coming to a consensus...and
using the same terms (or measuring/recording the same attributes.
etc.).  It gets very Frustrating!!  We even tried back in the early
90s...to come up with attributes and terms we could all agree on regarding
debitage (just one aspect of prehistoric archy)...and after 4
sessions...with 10 people...we have to concede to the fact that we would
Never all agree...and went back to doing it as we always had (but hopefully
some had their eyes opened a bit...to New ideas...?).   So I see it as
nearly impossible to agree on terms across this country...let alone the
entire world.   ??????

At 05:42 AM 1/10/04 -0500, you wrote:
>That was refreshing. There's a lot of terminology in the field that
>could use consensus.
>
>One of my first memories of an archaeological conference was a
>Southeastern session back in the sixties on the terminology for
>temper in pottery. At the Middle Atlantic this year, one speaker is
>going to struggle with the terminology of ironmaking site reportage.
>The Delaware Department of Transportation requests glossaries in
>public-consumption reports, and they sometimes have really wide
>variations.
>
>Does somebody have a peculiarly obsessive-compulsive graduate student
>who would like to become the Noah Webster of American archaeology?
>Really, it would be a great thesis.
>
>--
>[log in to unmask]