So you are looking at australia only.

The trouble is that it is quite possible that  issolated colonialization 
efforts were signifcantly different from one another. There is likely 
more pattern sharing for example along one long frontier settled with 
the same technology, availability of resources and mission 
orientation-goals than between two in radically different areas settled 
for different purposes and goals. One would probably find a part of a 
pattern which might be compariable.

So there might be one explanation for patterns not matching up. 
Accounting for the differences might be fun as they might lead back to 
dimensions of the settlement processes.

Conrad



Gaye Nayton wrote:

>Has anyone working in the former "wild west" states got any comparison
>tables of their data against South's or others that have used pattern
>recognition? The reason I ask is because Australia's northwest was colonised
>from 1860 so it falls into the same date range as the 'wild west' period. My
>material does not compare to patterns found on the earlier eastern seaboard
>sites.
>
> 
>
>I am in the final throes of writing a book about the northwest but during
>the writing of a chapter discovered this gap and now want to check out the
>similarities/differences if information is readily available. But I no
>longer have much time for sourcing books or reports from overseas. 
>
> 
>
>Regards
>
> 
>
>Gaye
>
>  
>