Howdy, Julie!  First of all, I am assuming that you are familiar with the
narrow confines with which stem bore dating can be used.  I have never
heard of not using the stem bore diameter measurements if the stem fragment
is close to the bowl so I don't know when that "started".  Also, the
distance from the rear of the bowl from which the stem bore diamter
measurements "could" be taken would be highly arbirtary.  However, I did
conduct uncontrolled/unofficial experiments in graduate school with
breaking pipe stems to see if there were variations in stem bore diameter
within a single pipe.

I took 6  white ball clay pipes with stems from 7 to 12 inches long and
outlined them on a sheet of paper.  If I recall correctly, 3 were
Goedewagen, 2 were English (probably by John Pollock) and one was an
american reproduction (probably from Williamsburg) and I wrote down the
maker by each outline.  I then broke the stems into segments about 1 1/2
inches long and placed them back on the outlines and maked the break on the
outline.  I used my short step guage to measure since the longer one
sometimes does not go in all the way on curved stems.  I then measured each
break and wrote it down at the drawn break line.

What I remember is that 2 of the six pipes showed as much as 1/64 inch
variation above or below the norm (one had 2 spots of 1/64 above the norm
and one had one each of 1/64 above and below the norm) and four pipes had
the same bore diamter all the way through. The stem bores were made by
pushing a wire through the stem.  This can cause variations by 1)
displacing clay as the wire is inserted and 2) pinching of the stem while
removing the wire.  I think that the displaced clay during wire insertion
may be increased if the wire is not pointed enough or the clay has been
allowed to become to stiff (or less elastic).

I have searched high and low for that piece of paper for years.  However,
during the experiment in the grad student bull pen, one of our collegues
brought in a 1 quart Mason jar of a clear liquid refreshment he received as
a "Care Package" from relatives in the Carolinas.  The rest of the evening
is a blur.

:-)

Smoke.


Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
605 West Main Street
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
(479) 968-2354  Ext. 233
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]

It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.




                      "Brodeur, Julie"
                      <JBrodeur@MPTN-N         To:      [log in to unmask]
                      SN.GOV>                  cc:
                      Sent by:                 Subject: pipestem bore diameters
                      HISTORICAL
                      ARCHAEOLOGY
                      <[log in to unmask]
                      u>


                      03/10/2004 09:58
                      AM
                      Please respond
                      to HISTORICAL
                      ARCHAEOLOGY






-----Original Message-----
From: Brodeur, Julie
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject <mailto:[log in to unmask]> : pipestem bore diameters

While reading Deetz and Deetz The Times of Their Lives I paused at the
passages describing how J.C. Harrington developed his method for measuring
pipe stem bore diameters. Deetz and Deetz recount that Harrington first
made
his observations on bowls that had a portion of the stem visible. In our
labs it has been the tradition that we not use the bore diameters at this
juncture so close to the bowl; the rational was that it will give us an
inaccurate measurement. No one here can remember exactly who, when or why
this convention began in our labs and I've not been able to come up with
any
documentation for the practice. Therefore I am turning to the list for
input. Is there a basis in the 50 year history of the development and
refinement of Harrington's method for not using the bore diameters close to
the bowl? Or are we following an erroneous convention?

Julie L Hartman-Brodeur
Staff Archaeologist
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center
(860) 396-6951   [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>