I didn't realize my 'simple' question would produce such results.  But,
should have known that hardly any archys Agree on the same thing.  :o)

I basically record the "original" function of the item...and make
comments as to whether it was modified, used in another way (i.e., paint
residue in a milk bottle), etc....in the Comments field.  

However, now that I think of it...for prehistoric stone tools...like a
mano that initally functioned as a grinding tool, but after breaking,
was battered on a fractured edge (for chopping or pounding)...I classify
the Last use...but note the original function in Comments.  Hmm...

I just returned from visiting the lovely state of New Mexico...but
hopefully can return for the SHAs in AlbQ!  Hopefully I can stay with my
cousin there.  Would love to 'review' your OAS manual Jeff.

Carol (still catching up on all my emails from my 6 day absence!)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>Behalf Of Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA
>Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:24 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: milk . . . a beverage . . . or food
>
>So, Carol's request for help has spawned some interesting 
>analytical methodological issues, has it not? Principal among 
>them, from my perspective, has to do with recording reuse or 
>recycling of items that get subsequently get deposited and 
>become part of the archaeological record. The OAS framework 
>intends that artifacts are recorded according to their 
>function as intended by the manufacturer (allowing, obviously 
>-- or we hope obviously -- for ambiguities that analysts have 
>difficulties -- for a whole host of reasons -- in 
>ascertaining). After an item's intended function is recorded, 
>the item's reused or recycled function can also be recorded, 
>if that function can be ascertained with some certainty by the analyst.
>Further, at the recommendation of OAS staff who would not 
>consider themselves "historic archaeologists" but have found 
>themselves working with Euroamerican artifact data, the 
>framework is, ideally, flexible enough to allow analysts to 
>record items in functional categories other than those that 
>might be most obvious, providing there are contextual reasons 
>to do so. I have to confess that I was initially opposed to 
>that flexibility and was of a mind to be stricter. Thankfully, 
>I was convinced of the error of my thinking. So, Tim, if you 
>had contextual reasons to suspect -- or demonstrate -- that 
>milk was used at your site to mix paint, you could certainly 
>record milk bottles as such rather than as food items. Ron, 
>I'm not sure whether you could define contexts in which milk 
>was used as a poison, although I am aware of the medical 
>controversies regarding whether humans should ever consume 
>bovine milk, and one of my children does have a milk allergy. 
>Still, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't record a milk bottle as 
>a poison container, unless I could demonstrate that, after the 
>milk was consumed, the container was used to hold a substance 
>that was intended for use as a poison.
>Like all of our analytical frameworks, the OAS framework is a 
>work in progress. It is explicitly functional in orientation 
>and draws on the pioneering work of Sprague and South, 
>followed by our "ancestors" (I'll pay for that remark, 
>although I'm one of them, sorta -- maybe a second generation?) 
>analyzing Euroamerican artifacts in New Mexico in the late 
>1970s and 1980s. OAS Euroam analysts have recently "completed" 
>an update and revision of the framework. As we "speak" (so to 
>speak), it is being reviewed for us by colleagues who don't 
>work at the OAS but were willling to be cajoled into giving us 
>their time and thoughts. We are, needless to say, grateful for 
>their largess and intend to exploit -- oops, I mean make use 
>of -- that until they come to their senses.
>Regarding your requests for copies of the OAS framework, 
>thanks mucho for thinking of us. We will be happy to make it 
>available, but ask for your patience as we look it over 
>ourselves and await the thoughts of the friends who have 
>agreed to look it over with us. We should have it ready for 
>wider distribution and perusal by the upcoming SHAs in Albuquerque.
> 
>Jeff
> 
>Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
>Project Director
>Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
>mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
>physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87501
>tel: 505.827.6387          fax: 505.827.3904
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>"It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 
>years time."  --Terry Pratchett
> 
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments 
>is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
>contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
>unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
>prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico 
>Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended 
>recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of 
>this message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - 
>Antigen Email System. 
>