HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:51:00 -0500
MIME-version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
In a message dated 3/1/01 4:36:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< 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?
  >>

Several archaeologists have proposed a break date of eight years following
maker's marks as a method of dating ceramics. I applied this to marker's
marks on whiteware ceramics at the Roeslein Homestead, CA-SDI-316, and
compared the results against glass, square nails, and a few other classes of
artifacts. We knew the house was built in the mid 1880s, based on 99% square
(or cut to the purists) nails. Glass containers dated to about 1890 to 1920.
The marked ceramics fell in the mid 1880s to 1910. The historical information
places William Roeslein as homesteading the land in 1895 and selling to in
1917, where upon the buyer demolished the house and used the water rights in
a water district. In this instance, adding 8 years to the maker's marks
worked out pretty well.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2