Both Holly Young and Jennifer Schansberg have pointed to the difference
in attitudes betwenn archaeologists and museum collections managers
concerning the fate of archaeological artifacts once they have been
excavated and *initially* analyzed.  This subject brings up one of my
pet peaves, so I can't help but join in the disscussion.
 
By way of introduction, let me say that I am both an archaeologist and a
museum professional who knows a fair amount about collections management.
Contrary to what Jim Barnes might think, this "exposure" to museum work
has not caused me to suffer the horrors of schizophrenia or multiple
personalities.  I'd like to think that my dual background has given me
some perspective on both sides of the issue (or is this being simply too
presumptuous?)
 
It is a legacy of the archaeological profession and the way that we do
archaeology in this country that artifacts are viewed as somewhat dis-
posable.  We dig them up, carefully record their provenience, clean them
(sometimes too much), number them, analyze them and stick them in a box
for storage.  At this point, our attention turns to the data we have
created from the analysis of the artifacts.  We massage it, manipulate it,
put it through rigorous statistical analysis.  We even come back to the
data and re-analyze it, especially when a controversy arises concerning
our conclusions.
 
But the artifact itself is out of sight, out of mind.  How often do we go
back and look at it again?  How often does another archaeologist dig it out
of its box, years later, and take another look at it from a different
theoretical and/or methodological perspective?  Let's face it, it is much
more desirable from a professional and funding standpoint to go out, dig
anew and dig up more stuff to wash, number, analyze and then box up.
 
This attitude has resulted in millions of artifacts, many improperly
numbered and curated, sitting on hundreds of storage shelves untouched
for years.  It is not at all uncommon for mice or other vermin to eat
away the paper bags in which the artifacts are stored (along with their
provenience information) before anyone looks at the stuff again.
 
We have become a lot more cognizant about excavating sites so that we leave
something behind for future generations of archaeologists to excavate, and
so that what we leave behind is intact enough to yield information at a later
date.  However, we have yet to adopt a similar attitude towards the artifact
collections we generate by excavating.  Yes, there are some archaeologists
who actively do original research with such collections, but by and large
this has not sunk into the profession at large.
 
Let's face it.  One of these days we are going to run out of at least certain
kinds of sites to excavate.  All we are going to have left are the artifacts
that have been previously excavated.  Unless we start curating them, and all
the associated field and laboratory documentation, in such a manner that
makes it usable for future archaeologists, we're going to take up a lot of
storage space with collections that are of little use to anyone, and we're
going to work our way right out of a profession.