Linda Derry is absolutely correct. It is context that separates us from the
lower orders. However, when I am out there in the field, I must be able to
date a piece of glass or a potsherd within pretty tight date-ranges. I must
know the tools and processes of whatever trades we might encounter, and I
must be prepared to change the direction of a field campaign in response to
whatever we find, be it stratum or sherd.

Every unit is a test unit; we make our decisions and we pursue leads, right
out there in the wilderness (or wherever), miles from the nearest ceramics
expert or reference collection. Our field decisions affect what we will do
after lunch, not what we will do next season, so we must be prepared to
make them with a fair degree of certainty.

We need the experts and specialists, but we can't bring them onto the site,
like a Greek chorus.

That's why I think we need a robust ongoing corpus of analytical tools, in
some form that gives us a uniformity of language and up-to-date source
references. Again, maybe a web site we could use from a laptop in the field
would be the best way to create a portable library.

Whatever we do, we must divert more attention to  artifact studies. While I
don't advocate turning journals into specification catalogues, I believe
it's desirable that we pay more attention to typology and dating.


  Archaeologists readily identify the
  worst of the profession. We agree that     _(____)_
  the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/        |
     1. They have fresh ideas;       _===__/   Baby  ||
     2. They write coherent prose;  | ___       ___  ||
     3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
  ____________________________   _ _  \_/_______\_/_____
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html