-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: collegiality


>In a message dated 8/10/99 4:38:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
>writes:
>
><< Artifacts are what we do. It's my personal opinion that we should first
> concentrate on mastering the materials of our trade. We may be schooled in
> the social sciences, but our primary job is dealing with artifacts and
> other material remains.
>  >>
>
>I beg to differ with your "mild expression of contrary opinion" Ned.
>Artifacts and material remains are merely the things that we use to
>understand what we are really all about - better understanding human
>behavior.  If archaeological evidence were not available (which sometimes
it
>is not) and there were other ways (and obviously there are - we use them in
>tandum with archaeological evidence) of helping us understand the nature of
>human behavior; of what, how and why changes take place in that behavior
>through time, there would be those of use who would use them.  I agree that
>mastering the basics of any field is critical to be able to work within it
>most efficiently and to be able to draw out the most important data from
it.
>However, I have never considered it essential to know every projectile
point
>type, even in my region, in order to practice good archaeology (I can look
>them up).  I've never considered it critical to know every method of
>brickmaking or every ceramic type.  Certainly, if all of us were
>quintessential rennaissance anthropologists (and lived in an era when there
>was 1 percent of the knowledge that there is today), we could know all of
>those things.  Today, it means that we must pick and choose what we can do
>best.  For many of us I believe that means that we must become  either more
>general or more specific in our work.  For the generalists, we must depend
>more upon the specialists who gladly study and argue to better understand
the
>minutia of ceramic types.  I say to them "bravo, go for it".  As for me, I
>will gladly use the fruits of their labors.
>
>Mike Polk
>Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
>Ogden, Utah
>

I think Ned is right.  If you can not identify what you are finding when you
find it (not in the lab) then how will you know when an artifact is out of
position.  Ceramics and glass make up the majority of the artifacts we find
and if you can not make an informed identification on-site it could cost you
time and your interpretation.

Bill Liebekencht