Yeah, as research continues, things certainly do get improved/changed.  I am 
woefully aware that with my 30+ years experience some of my earlier work is 
ummm (as Carol Serr would say) no longer ummm as good as I used to think it 
was.

And as for being financially able to revisit those projects to make 
corrections, sigh...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lockhart, Bill" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: query: discards


I should warn everyone that this is a very biased reply; I deal almost 
exclusively with historical bottle research, so I read reports focused 
through that lense.

Although this does not directly address Susan's issue, it is relevant to it.

As we have more information available, it becomes harder -- not easier -- to 
evaluate sites, levels, and/or depositions.  For example, when Toulouse 
(1971) was the definitive source for manufacturer's marks, it was relatively 
easy to look up a mark, plug in the date, and happily write the report.

Those days are over!  Toulouse did a great job with evidence available in 
1971.  It is now so woefully out of date that the information should be 
regarded as approximate -- AT BEST.  The Bottle Research Group (BRG) and 
other researchers are revising dates and identifications of logos, 
manufacturing techniques, and other factors involving bottle identification 
daily.

Numerous bottle are misidentified in reports by as much a half a century --  
confounding any REAL understanding about the inhabitants.  I am certain that 
similar updates are occurring in virtually all other areas (ceramics, metal 
artifacts, bricks, etc.).

What that means in real terms is that assigning the most junior member of 
the team to write up the bottles (or any other artifact class), based on a 
two-week learning curve, no longer works well.  The information is too vast, 
and accuracy is too important.

I understand the time and financial constraints, especially with CRM firms, 
and I know that few will undertake major expensive revisions in current 
methods.  However, the BRG and many others on this list offer free 
consulting.  Members of the BRG receive several requests for information 
each week (sometimes several per day!), and we give away information freely.

When I began, I did not intend for this to be a commercial.  My point is 
that we need to delve more deeply into the information -- that IS 
available -- in order to achieve a better understanding of the past.

Bill






Bill Lockhart
Professor of Sociology
New Mexico State University
Alamogordo, NM
(575) 439-3732
>>> Susan Walter <[log in to unmask]> 6/27/2012 10:10 AM >>>
June 20, 2012

Happy Summer everyone.

I read this yesterday:

"Thought of the day:  'The things people discard tell more about them than 
the things they keep.'  Really?  We saw this saying in a magazine and aren't 
sure we agree.  Do you?"
    Kovels on Antiques and Collectibles Volume 38 Number 11, July 2012: page 
129.

As a historic archaeologist, I often wonder if I am misinterpreting the 
site's inhabitants because of the garbage - artifacts - that I have on hand 
to interpret, especially when the written record is sparce and there are no 
descendants to give insight.

I may do a brief caveat in a report, but I wonder how or if you all out 
there address this skewed version of the at times very specific individuals 
we claim to understand just from their garbage.

S. Walter


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.930 / Virus Database: 2433.1.1/5096 - Release Date: 06/26/12 
23:34:00