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
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:55:04 +0800
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Subject:
From:
Gaye Nayton <[log in to unmask]>
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
I use mean dating by modifying South's mean ceramic date formula but to date
layers in my sites not the whole site.  Dating the whole site would not be
much use to me.  My Ph.D research is on a frontier which came and went
within thirty years so I needed a way of dividing up that time.

There's more to it then just getting a mean date or a time span for the
assemblage, but in WA I have dated layers in several sites to chronological
timespans of about ten years.  As they are historical sites there is often
some sort of historical information such as when the site was first
occupied, or when a bad cyclone impacted on it that the reliability of the
dating method can be checked against. There seems to be a time lag affect of
four or so years between historical dates and mean dates.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Heite" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: TPQs etc


> At 6:55 PM -0700 8/25/03, Praetzellis wrote:
> >
> >I never did understand what more a mean date could tell us about a
> >location that was occupied for a long period of time or by several
> >groups or activities sequencially other than some kind of mid-point
> >of the occupation.
>
> Adrian:
>
> As you state the issue, you are correct.  A mean date for the total
> collection from a long-occupied site is gibberish.
>
> For an isolated site with limited occupation, mean date is one of the
> many useful numbers.  TPQ is another.  The weighted ceramic date
> suggested by Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh is another.  William Hampton
> Adams in a recent article has suggested some ways to consider such
> factors as life cycle in the presence of formulaic dating.
>
> Combined with such tools as the Harris matrix, Stan South's formula
> enriches the mix.
>
> But mean ceramic date is not a holy object to be placed on a shelf
> and venerated.
>
>
> --
> Ned @ Heite.org
>
> You know you're in trouble
> when your idea of excitement
> is the way the receipt pops
> jauntily, even with gay abandon,
> from the slot in the ATM machine.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2