Ron,

No anticipated torrent of attacks, it would seem.  Indeed, I think if you read
my original e-mail, you'll find that I wasn't arguing what you seem to think I'm
arguing - assuming that what you wrote was directed at me.

Far from saying functional categories shouldn't be attempted at all, what I
wrote was:

"Note that I'm not arguing against including functional categories if that's
what
you want to do (as some people have mistakenly believed when I've previously
raised this issue), simply noting that the assumptions underlying those
functional categories should be suitably queried and justified before they're
included."

So far from stating that the difference between display and consumption
mitigates completely against the use of functional categories, I'm only arguing
that those categories should be appropriately queried, defined and justified.

Jeanne Harris, for example, wrote that she uses primary intended function at the
point of manufacture (my phrase, not hers, but I assume we mean much the same
thing) unless she finds compelling archaeological evidence to the contrary
(apologies Jeanne if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly).  Thus she has a consistent
reason for her terminological usage, and one that can be cross-referenced by
researchers wanting to use her data.

I may differ on some specifics, but what I do here in Victoria (the Australian
state, not the Canadian city), isn't a million miles away from what Jeanne does.

I'll freely admit that I'm personally not a big fan of pre-assigning function in
a database as a matter of _habit_ as I think it sometimes confuses the boundary
between issues of identification (identifying those characteristics with which
an artefact is inherently imbued) and issues of interpretation/analysis
(identifying the characteristics of an artefact which are socially constructed,
whether by the original user or the archaeologist).  HOWEVER... and this is a
big however, I recognise that there are any number of reasons why it may be
necessary or desirable for archaeologists to include them in a catalogue which
have little to do with any potentially hair-splitting argument on my part over
definitions of identification vs. interpretation.  And here in Victoria there's
the simple fact that the use of functional categories in databases is mandatory
for any historical archaeology assemblage lodged with the State (ie most of
them), which would make it impractical in the extreme for anyone to argue that
archaeologists based here should stop using them.

I'm not making a black and white all or nothing anti-functionalist argument.
All I'd like to see is a little more effort to define, query, and justify on the
part of archaeologists using functional categories - more so in Australia than
North America, but the basic point's valid on both sides of the Pacific.

And writing "see South 1977: 96-102" doesn't count ;-)

Alasdair


> Date:
> Fri, 27 May 2005 11:54:19 -0400 From: Ron May <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Historical Analysis Databases
>
>
> So now we read that "functional" categories are not to be attempted because
> someone might use a tea cup for drinking and displaying? How about
> a "carriage bolt" used to tie a roof beam together? How do we handle enormous
masses of
> information and quantify it in a meaningful context unless we categorize by
> some sort of behavioral function? I should think "domestic" is broad enough to
> cover drinking from a tea cup and displaying tea sets. As well, the term
> "fastener" under "building materials" covers most uses of bolts. Sometimes,
> you have to consider the context in behavioral analyses. Well, I anticipate a
> torrent of attacks from the anti-functional analysis crowd, now that I have
> stepped into this debate.
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.
>