I agree with Ned Heite...at the least, the weight of fragmented brick, size
of fragments, glazing or not, whether handmade or machined, should be
recorded and added to the catalog for analysis.  My perspective on it is if
I am not going to do anything with the brick data, as an academic and a
ten-year CRMer it is my responsibility to record the data for someone else
to use.  Archaeological sites are a finite resource.  What are we going to
study in the future after we've excavated all the sites?  We are responsible
for the replication of our work as historical archaeologists.  How about
thernolumenescence testing and its application to analyzing brick?  Ha
anyone ever tried it? It is my opinion that fragmented and whole brick
should be treated on equal terms as the large, rough, shell-tempered
utilitarian ceramic vessel sherds found in abundance on our late
Mississippian sites here in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. As to
the rest of my intro, I am GOF with a wife sent from heaven and two great
kids.  1999 BS in Anthropology with minors in Archaeology and History,  2003
MA candidate in Public History with emphasis in CRM, completed all but
thesis and looking forward to doctoral classes (if I don't die first:):):)
Large student loan...mortage...just started a new CRM firm in Middle
Tennessee after ten years with a local CRM firm.  Scared, but rely on my
family and the kindness of friends:)

Dan Allen
Middle Tennessee State University
Cumberland Research Group, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Heite" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:31 AM
Subject: dumping sherds


> Over the years, I have seen many thousands of bricks dumped in the
> field without comment. But what distinguishes bricks from all the
> other ceramics on a site?  Basically bricks are different because
> they are "everywhere" and therefore are dismissed as uninformative.
>
> Bullbleep!
>
> Bricks are a great interpretive class of artifacts, but they are the
> Rodney Daingerfield of historical archaeology.
>
> Bricks should be treated as significant ceramic artifacts and
> analysed as any other artifacts. We are currently working on a
> multiple-site survey of a large tract, and we are saving and
> cataloguing every brick we find. The results have been stunning.
>
> Anita asked for intro, even from the GOF set. Right now I'm busy
> sorting bricks.
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Sitting here drinking diet mead
> from my plastic fake auroch's horn
> flagon, I wonder that my
> contemporaries look like a bunch of
> old geezers.
>