Alistair:

Right on!  I admit to not following this thread, although I'm  intensely
interested in it, so forgive me if you've covered this ground  already. I've been
in the throes of federal retirement. Now set up in  a  home office, I can sit
back and read my HISTARCH listserve again!

I've long argued (and will be doing so vehemently in an upcoming book on  the
Northern gold rushes) that artifact classification systems MUST be devised
to fit the research problem at hand. Universal systems DO NOT WORK! If we
insist  on using consistent, universal taxonomic systems for categorizing our
artifacts,  we will solve the same old problems over and over again, become
stagnant, and  never come up with anything new. We will never move on.

Sure, we have to know what we mean when we name something, and it's helpful
if we don't have to redefine terms every single time we write something up.
But using South or Sprague or Whomever to tell us how to order our thoughts
forces us into certain lines of inquiry from which we might not be able to
escape. In my dissertation, I tried to argue for a flexible approach to
organizing classification systems. Sure, we have to come up with consistent ways  of
NAMING things, so we all know what we're talking about, but to blindly  classify
stuff the same way every time is ludicrous.

Rick Sprague argued that context is key to functional classification, and I
hardily agree . A teacup may be used for drinking tea, or it may be used for
display. A rubber balloon may be used to mark a celebration or as a child's
toy.  Sometimes we can tell the difference from its context. Sometimes we can't.
 Sometimes its important to know the difference. Often it's not. Are we
interested in knowing whether children were at a site? Are we interested in
knowing whether people displayed heirlooms in a household? It all goes back to
thinking about what you're doing BEFORE you start organizing and analyzing your
artifacts. Don't let someone else do your thinking for you!!! Not unless you
don't think you're smart enough to figure it all out for yourself.

Just food for thought...


Cathy