I've always felt that mean ceramic dates were one of the more perversely
silly methods of quantification to have grown out of the New
Archaeology.  Surely it only tells you what combining a decent knowledge
of stratigraphy and ceramic manufacture dates would let you know anyway?

I don't even think it's that useful in identifying time lag since time
lag is essentially an ever-present issue in assemblage deposition, and
should therefore always be taken into account.

Finally, mean ceramic dates are statistically flawed:  They are not mean
dates, but rather means of the median dates.  They assume a standard
bell curve for ceramics manufacture, whereas even the most basic
'battleship curve' for material culture proves that a standard bell
curve is the last thing you should expect in archaeology - therefore the
median date of manufacture (used to calculate MCDs) is _not_ the mean
date of manufacture.

Hmmm.  Sorry.  Obviously in a cranky mood today.
Apologies if I've offended anyone.

Alasdair Brooks

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> In Texas, sites that date from the late 1840s and 1850s give you ceramic
> dates in the 1800-1830 range because everybody brought old stuff with them
> to settle in Texas.  We've joked that somewhere in St. Louis or on the east
> coast there were stores selling "Pioneer Texas!" supplies, including 40 or
> 50 year old household ceramic sets in cases.  Looks like we weren't far
> wrong.
>
> Jake.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
University of York
King's Manor
York
YO1 7EP
England, UK
phone: 01904 433931
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull