Dear All,

I'm passing this on from a colleague who knows more about bricks than I
do (me, I'm cultivating archaeological interests which means I can say
'not my period!' and 'not my materials!' to virtually everything!)

  ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Pat!,


[personal bit deleted]

Can you pass this onto them, if you think it's appropriate?:

Having worked on bricks for nearly 20 years, I would support what Pat says.
I would also add that Ian Betts' PhD on brick in York up to the 18th
century, when compared to Pat Ryan's work, proves regional variation - the
York material shows great differences to the Essex brick, particularly in
size.  Regional variation often seems not to be recognised as being in the
least significant - 'After all, a brick is just a brick, isn't it?' as many
of my archaeological colleagues often say or imply. Those of us who work
with brick (and tile) know better!

Unfortunately, funding for publication work on this material is hard to come
by, so the argument that bricks are not any use for dating, or are not of
interest in their own right (unlike like pottery or small finds, of course)
continues to be made on very little evidence.

If people want to join the ACBMG email list they can send a message to:
[log in to unmask]

If they just want to send a query, they can send a message to:
[log in to unmask]

The group's website is at: http://www.tegula.freeserve.co.uk/acbmg.html

And, yes, I wish bricks were the size of postage stamps - hoiking the stuff
around is horrendous :-)

Sandra Garside-Neville
*********************
S Garside-Neville
http://www.tegula.freeserve.co.uk
*********************

Best wishes,

Pat



--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)