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