Oops! My apologies folks...this was meant to be an off-list reply. I guess
I just joined the club....
Cathy
----- Forwarded by Cathy Spude/SANTAFE/NPS on 01/28/03 12:48 PM -----
Cathy Spude
To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
01/28/03 10:53 AM cc:
MST Subject: Re: comparative data on saloons(Document link:
Cathy Spude)
Stephen:
First of all, let me apologise for not getting back to you right away. I
made the mistake of posting my query just as I was leaving on travel, and
have not been able to return my messages until now.
Thank you for replying to my query on comparative data for saloons. I might
be interested in your data, if it was quantified in the following manner:
Minimum number of individual vessels, or some method of determining them
from an inventory, such as detailed descriptions of artifact fragments
(bottle lips and bases by type and color); ceramics by decoration and
vessel form.
I also need to have some assignments made as to the function of the
artifacts: e.g. "whiskey bottle," not "bottle." Again, if you have
detailed descriptive inventories without assigning function, perhaps I
might be able to make it work.
All data must be quantified. One collection I tried to use had counted
everything but the buttons! It was terribly frustrating to have weeded
through 3/4 of a report, taking detailed notes of narrative, culling out
numbers, then get to the description of the buttons, and see "we found a
bunch of buttons." AAAAAACCKKK!!!!
Finally, the total of all non-architecturally-related artifacts (not
counting window glass, nails, or anything having to do with the building or
structure) must be at least 100 items (MNI). Oh, also not counting faunal
or floral collections.
I realize these are hard conditions to meet. It makes it hard for me to get
comparative collections for my studies. However, if you think your studies
MIGHT meet these conditions, I would LOVE to have copies of the reports.
I will look into the PSAQ as suggested by G. Alcock.
Thank you again for replying to my query.
Cathy
[log in to unmask]
M To: [log in to unmask]
Sent by: cc:
HISTORICAL Subject: Re: comparative data on saloons
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
01/17/03 11:55 AM
EST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
I have done several projects that may or may not be of interest to you. I
will list them below.
1. A Basque roadhouse - tavern in Encino California circa 1870 - 1900.
2. A hotel with a saloon associated with it circa 1890 - 1920 in El Cajon
California. (Small farming town that later went dry)
3. A mining camp consisting largely of Mexican families in the eastern
desert of California near Yuma Arizona. The camp had a large number of
salons. This was a testing program and the report focused on patterns from
the community as a whole. However, the saloon data is there and the
consumption pattern for the entire community was extremely high in
alcoholic beverages.
4. A restaurant on the water front of San Diego circa 1895. This business
was located within the saloon district. It had a significant quantity of
liquor bottles in the assemblage although the preparation and serving of
meals was the business's primary function. The historic background section
discussed the role of saloons and restaurants in 19th century cities.
Since many saloons also provided food the distinction between restaurants
and saloons in this neighborhood was not always clearly defined.
Let me know if you are interested in any of these reports. The Encino
Roadhouse data was published in Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly in 1983, if you have access to that publication.
Stephen Van Wormer
238 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
[log in to unmask]
(619) 426 - 5109
|
