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