Mr. Adams:
 
          I think that you need to not get so defensive about my
          little observation.  I'm not out to criticize or "slam" you
          and your methods--that wasn't the intent.  The intent was to
          make brief mention to  the fundamental difference between
          two "object ideologies".  The difference between how and
          what museum people think about objects and how and what
          archaeologists think is, of course, going to manifest itself
          in the way the people in each profession treat the objects
          they encounter.
 
          Because each agenda is different, each profession as a whole
          is going to have some criticism for the treatment.  Museum
          conservators and collections managers will scream at how
          ragged and poor things look when they come in and
          archaeologists will scream because they can't get to the
          stuff they dug up as it is now deemed "fragile".
          The agenda behind archaeology is to preserve the
          _information_ contained in an object--the object, in most
          cases, is not the most important part of study.  It is a
          tool.  Museum people, on the other hand, conservators
          especially want to preserve the object itself--to give it
          maximum above ground life.  That's not to say that
          information isn't important to us as well, but if there is
          nothing left of the object because it's been treated poorly,
          then there can be no more information received.  Can you
          tell me this ISN'T true??  So this agenda manifests itself
          in the way things are handled for example.  Museum
          conservators, registrars, collections managers, whatever use
          wear white cotton gloves to handle what archaeologists have
          pulled out of the ground and, I've actually done this,
          LICKED to find out what kind of material it is.  While
          spit was once considered a miracle cleanser in museums (I
          got that from Carolyn Rose at the Smithsonian.  Take it up
          with her if you have a problem with it), I doubt it is
          considered an acceptable museum practice anymore.  Much more
          sophisticated enzymes have "evolved" I think.
 
          So, Mr. Adams, I sincerely congratulate you on your efforts
          to work with conservators to make YOUR work more museum
          friendly.  But even though, as Ms. Young states, attempts
          are being made to foster this type of communication, you are
          the exception rather than the rule.  I think this is shown
          by Ms. Cohen-Williams post that started this whole thing,
          stating:
 
          "Sorry, people, but archaeologists in this country have been
          using "white-out" for decades to label artifacts.  We have
          found it to be the most stable material, and it is
          waterproof as well.  I have yet to see an artifact damaged
          by its application."
 
          And this, posted on a _MUSEUM_ discussion list!  Some
          discussion about different attitudes must have been
          expected.