On 1 Mar 01, at 11:35, Gaye Nayton wrote:

>...
>
> As for it messing up mean dates yes it does but ceramics are not the best artifacts
to base mean dates on if you want accuracy. I have formulated a mean date method which
on late 19th C to present sites usually gives me assemblages with ten year time spans.
It appears to work on mid 19th century sites too but I have not been able to test that much.
I feel that the time spans generated would probably be longer on older sites. I double check
my chronology against known historical occurances such as when the site was first built
and any dated modifications if  I have such info....

Ah.  I too proceeded in that manner, depending largely upon glass
artifacts, which tend to have a shorter use life and all those nice
marks, etc.  I wondered what all the fuss about ceramics was from
those folks on the east coast when glass (along with other factors)
clearly was so much better.  Then I worked a site that dated to the
late 1700s.  Very little glass, with no marks, and no discernable
technology changes, etc.  I developed a very great respect for
ceramics during that project - and I was able to differentiate the
overlapping temporal use periods of adjacent structures.  It all
depends on the period you are working with and what was left
behind for you to examine - use everything available.


Paul
[log in to unmask]