Ned H wrote:

>But I must disagree with Adrian on the subject of industrial products.
This
>has all the characteristics of yet another offhand dismissal. Collectors
>know that industrially-produced  artifacts are  subject to variations.
Just
>ask any dealer in "collectible" model trains, beer bottles, or other
>trinkets.


The alternative being that we treat every last bottle and nail as unique? 
Nah, that was a low blow. 
Actually I don't suppose we really disagree here. My point is that, in the
light of the curation crisis, it makes sense to think about why we're
keeping the stuff and whether it's future research potential is *likely* to
be worth the cost of holding on to it. 

In the old days of the early '70s (oh-oh, he's off again) in the UK, we
were constantly bulldozing off post-medieval deposits to get to the good
stuff--the rule was to stop when you hit the yellow combed slipware. Were
we wrong in going for the medieval and Roman deposits at the expense of the
post-med? Seems to me that archaeologists are constantly doing a juggling
act between competing exigencies.

Adrian Praetzellis
Sonoma State University