John Dendy makes a good point, illustrated with the comment about the hot
comb. We can't know all the historic-period artifacts. Nor can we know all
the trades, the decorative-arts movements, etc., that we are called upon to
interpret. More and more, we will be filling teams with subject-matter
experts, and the experts will need to circulate. Some, like George Miller,
will develop expertise and share it with the rest of us in workshops. There
are many ways to distribute knowledge, and some are working.

That doesn't alter the fact that archaeology's single most important tool
is the artifact.

Artifact data is all we have, as a basis for our grand assumptions. But our
journals have tended to put the cart before the horse of late. We are
seeing more and more interpretation, and less and less of the materials, in
the literature. Of course there are exceptions, but the need far outstrips
the resources that are being produced. As has been so frequently mentioned,
the original Stan South table of dates continues to be recycled in reports,
and continues to be the basis for mean ceramic dates, a quarter century and
more after it was formulated. Does that mean we haven't refined ceramic
dating and typology in a generation? Silly question. So why do we see the
old dates still in current use?

We will be able, some day, to use the fruits of archaeology to interpret
social movements, class struggle, frontier subsistence, or whatever, but
only if our analytical tools are up to the job, which in large measure they
are not. If you are lucky enough to have a type collection and library that
has been developing over forty years, and if you can attend all the
conferences, you just might have a handle on most of the materials. I'm not
against interpretation, but I am offended by vast interpretation derived
from half-vast resources.

In spite of Mike Polk's denial, it is possible (and desirable) to develop a
nodding relationship with all the prehistoric artifacts in your operating
area. Not so with historical artifacts, especially those from the
mass-market period.

It's sad but true that our clients today don't want to fund in-depth
artifact analysis or ancillary research. Here in Delaware we are blessed
with a hyperactive road-building program and a transportation department
archaeological administrator who lets us do the job right. Everyone isn't
so blessed, but the fact remains that we need the artifact analysis
resources and they will only come from within the profession. I agree with
Mary Ellin that the web may become a great method for putting out
typological data, but it isn't a durable and permanent resource. We need to
think about artifacts, real hard.



  Archaeologists readily identify the
  worst of the profession. We agree that     _(____)_
  the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/        |
     1. They have fresh ideas;       _===__/   Baby  ||
     2. They write coherent prose;  | ___       ___  ||
     3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
  ____________________________   _ _  \_/_______\_/_____
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html