I find it slightly worrying that some of the comments in this thread
point to the decline of the role of the specialist in the US- i hope
that I am wrong. This has been one of the main detrimental effects of
commercial archaeology in the UK and will have profound long-term
effects. Even the Museum of London unit (MOLAS) has no documentary
historian on the staff when it once had two. Most British units first
dropped first their finds specialists and then even finds co-ordinators
from their staff. I strongly suspect that David Barker and his
colleagues  will be the last generation at Stoke museum to have any such
expertise relating to the collection- a sin with the leisure managers
who now head most of our museum services. A few weeks ago I ran into a
famous British historian in the Public Records Office who had been
appointed academic advisor to a major project in a county  where I have
been made to send in a long CV to prove I was up to writing up 6 sherds
and sent 100 pages on standards (a rarity). I was therefore surprised
when he told me that the contractor concerned had employed an
archaeologist to do the documentary research with no historical training
and that it was as a result totally inadequate. He had complained- but
probably to no result.
No one can master all the skills and material in archaeology. It is also
very easy to make glaring mistakes in interpreting such material never
mind missing huge amounts of potential information. Specialists in
ceramics, finds, documents etc are vital for good quality archaeological
work. I see little future for such people in Britain - and the
usefulness of archaeological work will generally decline as a result. I
hope this is not the case in the US.  Specialists need nurturing and
protecting. And write that book - David (I said I would nag you)

In message <[log in to unmask]>,
Neal Hitch <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I understand the need of expertise in identification, but it has been my
>personal experience that you can know every type of ceramic but fall
>short on 18th and 19th century building technology and construction
>systems and miss the larger interpretation of a site and its context.
>How does one establish priorities with the little time available to
>study and memorize types and typologies.  You can say it is experience,
>but the older established archaeologists are not winning my RFPs(often
>read low bidder).
>
>So my question is: What is the most important body of knowledge to
>memorize and what should be left to secondary sources?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dendy, John [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 4:49 PM
>> To:   [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:      Re: collegiality
>>
>>         Bill Liebekencht writes:
>>
>>         " 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."
>> >
>>         I have to agree. Out of position or out of context. However,
>> we
>> often find ourselves dealing with contexts that are unfamiliar. I
>> recall
>> meeting an archeologist who was excavatingan urban site on the east
>> coast
>> (dated around the 1870s, if I recall) who knew the glass, the
>> ceramics, etc.
>> but nevertheless found several metal objects that made absolutely no
>> sense
>> to him at all. Had he not had an African American on the site with
>> him, he'd
>> have never guessed they were early iterations of the "hot comb".
>>
>>         John Dendy
>>         Archeologist
>>         Dynamac Corporation

Paul Courtney
Leicester UK