As you say, Pat, the particularists will rip your hide off in the future for
leaving out details. But at what cost to research? Sure, we could do protein
residue analysis, DNA, finger prints, chemical analyses and a few other
forensic studies on an artifact that the 1898 Sears Catalogue identified as a "tea
cup," but who is going to pay for it? Does it really matter if they drank tea,
lemonade or whiskey out of the tea cup? I know George Miller will say we should
use the terminology created by the creators. Does it improve the science to
say: "Molded, white, clear-glazed, porcelain, half sphere (open upward),
out-flared rim, ring foot, black underglaze Austiran maker's mark (unidentified),
vertical fluted pattern, hand-painted (green, pink, and yellow) floral elements,
with handle (with twelve distinct finger prints) and residue of tannic acid,
citric acid, and rye in the bowl?" I recommend that you consider the term tea
cup to be a code for simplification of a complext descriptor and then get on
with the real research questions. One can get so bogged down in descriptors
that he/she forgets to ask what Aunt Emma was doing in the kitchen?

It seems to me that sanitizing nomenclature down to the point that we forget
the research questions renders our profession meaningless. Certainly the U.S.
Congress would howl all the more that this sort of debate is proof that
American laws need re-writing to eliminate the cost and problem of doing archaeology
before construction projects.

But this is just my opinion.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.