Thanks for the posts so far, which seem to me to be very useful.

One thing I'd like to apologise for is the examples I've given, which were only meant to be illustratory. Obviously, they had to be summaries and this inevitably means I've had to simplify here and there. I've been reluctant to post this "article" for some time, as I felt it was inevitably going to be too long for The Mudcat's forum format. After seeking advice from Joe Offer, I eventually decided to risk splitting it up into (still quite long) sections and to go ahead with it.

A couple of specific points.

Despite the fact it was only used as an illustrative example, I'll expand on my very brief summary of the "Dido, Bendigo" to illustrate some of what I've had to miss out. Dating the use of the name "Bendigo" for hounds is a point which could go on for ever, but there are some good reasons for believing a hound called Bendigo was named after "The" Bendigo. Almost all the names given to hounds (I'll use examples from the song) are intended to indicate qualities which it is hoped they might possess, from aristocracy/gentility (Bonny Lass, Countess, Gentry, Dido, Jover Jove) to staying power (Rover, Traveller). The name Abednego (or its variations) is very rare in England and before 1840 the variation Bendigo appears not to be recorded at all. As an example, the Mormon (FamilySearch) records have only 26 people called Abednego Smith (or any variant, including Bendigo) between 1580 and 1856, and there are 8 Abednego Joneses (or variants) in all. The only instance I've so far found of someone in Britain called "Bendigo" is in the 1881 census where a Bendigo Jones is recorded as a 40-year-old unmarried boarder in the inn of John Jones, Inkeeper, in Ruthin, Denbighshire. A name used by slaves or even just any name (like John, for example) would be unlikely to be used for hounds unless it could be associated with some desirable quality. There appears to be no recorded instance of a hound called, for example, Meshak or Shadrach (the latter is four times more popular as a name than Abednego ... FamilySearch has 102 Shadrach Smiths), and there would be no reason to call a hound by that name.   Summaries have to exclude this level of detail or they'd be so long as to be unreadable.

Again, the singability or otherwise of "The Black Velvet Band" has no bearing on the argument I was putting forward (it was just me being tongue-in-cheek), but I take the point about "being in the spirit" (as George Fox said) when you're examining things from another age or culture. This sometimes requires an enormous amount of study, which is seldom translatable onto paper. As a related issue, the analysis of structure and form isn't popular at the moment, I think (perhaps being cynical) because it's difficult. It has a very important place in techniques like the construction of a series. Another archaeological tool, and one which was subsquently borne out (in general) when forensic techniques like radiocarbon dating became available. What's more important to me is that a conclusion which is drawn must be capable of being tested, and this means that it must be possible to disprove it given the right evidence.

I share Les's reluctance to use latin phrases, but it seems to me better to use existing terms with a well established technical meaning than to try and invent your own, and these are the standard terms already in use. I'm also very taken with the "bucket" metaphor, though I don't think that being presented with a mixed lot of junk is any excuse for not trying to examine it. Quite a few archaeologists and forensic scientists are given just this kind of job and it's surprising what can be done with the right tools. As for artefacts being unavailable, I think you'd be surprised just how much information there is if you look for it - though, obviously, not in every case.   

:-)