Michael Nassaney writes:
 
>All of this (the ills and ruin of late 20th century capitalism!) all from a
>single union pin in a 1940s deposit?  You judge for yourself.
 
One could argue with equal validity that the pin was discarded because
the person did not agree with what it stood for. Perhaps he ripped it
from the union organizer's lapel as he stuck him with a knife. :)
 
Nassaney (HISTARCH 11/20/97) and Stewart-Abernathy (HISTARCH 11/20/97)
both are correct that small samples can be informational and can be
linked to regional and national issues. We SHOULD extrapolate from our
data. But at the same time we must recognize the limitations of our data
and how far we can make a valid extrapolation.
 
A number of years ago, Tim Riordan and I came up with applying Pred's
commodity flow model to archaeological assemblages. That certainly was an
extrapolation from site assemblages to inferences on the success of the
national industrial and transportation industries. I think our
extrapolation was based on a sufficiently large database and that it is
valid. Others may well disagree.
 
I do not know which is worse: a history of the world based on one site,
or, a site history which does not include the world.
 
Bill Adams