With respect to contents vs. bottle descriptions, to some extent bottle descriptions can indeed give us a good suggestion about contents. Certain shapes were meant to be recognized as containers for particular products (e.g. horseradish and ketchup both of which retain their traditional shapes today). Certain colors can do so as well. Cobalt blue, for instance,most often indicates products of the Emerson drug Co., especially Bromo seltzer. So precise physical descriptions are necessary to determining the content as well as dating deposits.

I found on one site, that of a log house last occupied in the early 1900s in a remote area of Lewis county, New York, that the patent medicines used by the last occupants either were marketed for or contained ingredients traditionally used for the treatment of a variety of symptoms, all of which are symptoms of disseminated tuberculosis. I came to the conclusion that the last occupants may have been suffering from this disease. Accurate determination of contents and determination of what phase of the occupation these bottles were associated with both were made possible by precise description.

Marty Pickands
New York State Museum

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/09/04 02:00PM >>>
{ SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1}  This topic came up in another venue, but it may be of interest to some
or even most of you.  Many of you may know all this (although some of what
is recorded below is not published in any venue I am aware of), but it still
may be of interest to your lab staff or students.

Glass containers.  What information would be most useful to glass
researchers if recorded in archaeological reports or databases?

        First, let me address the interconnected nature of bottle research and
archaeological data.  Archaeologists record data on glass artifacts and use
existing collector and archaeological literature to identify, date, and gain
other useful information on the specific objects.  Bottle researchers use
historical sources, collectors’ empirical data, and archaeological
reports/databases to information about identification, dating, and other useful
information about bottles to create helpful literature.  For example,
archaeologists use literature on manufacturer’s marks (e.g., Toulouse 1971) to
help date artifacts, and glass researchers use data on individual artifacts to
date manufacturer’s marks (e.g., Wilson 1981 shows marks on beer bottle
bases that cannot have been used after 1891 when Ft. Union shut down).
Thus the two have a symbiotic effect.

        Typically, archaeological reports/databases contain information that is
mildly useful to glass researchers, such as color, fragmentation, finish type,
heelmarks, basemarks, automatic or hand production, etc.  These only begin
to tell the story.  Other things that would be very helpful include:

More details about basemarks and heelmarks
        Include the exact description of the mark.  If the mark is S G & B Co,
is it in the form of a downward arch at the top of the base, and upward arch at
the bottom of the base, a horizontal line across the center, or a divided mark
with S G & at the top and B Co at the bottom of the base?  In this example,
each of these represents a different time period.  Currently, it appears likely
that the horizontal mark in the center was the last one used, and the divided
mark was the first.  The temporal placement of the other two is yet to be
determined, but it will be if we get enough additional information about
enough bottles.  Research on these marks, of course, is still in process, so this
should not be taken as absolute.

        To further illustrate how manufacturing technique can help us date
marks, the divided S G & Co has so far only been found on bottles with
applied finishes (see discussion below), indicating a use during the earliest
years the company was operating, ca. 1881-1885 (Streator was in business
from 1881 to 1905 when it became part of the American Bottle Co.).  The
marks horizontally across the center, on the other hand, are found on both
mouth-blown bottles with tooled finishes and on bottles made by semi-
automatic machines and those with crown finishes.  Both of these were only
available late in the tenure of Streator.

        Also include all numbers associated with marks.  Often, this can be
vital to even identifying the user of a mark (e.g., L.G.Co. or L.G.Co./1 was
used on milk bottles by the  Lockport Glass Co. from 1900-1919 * L.G.Co.
52 was probably used by the Lamb Glass Co. on milk bottles in the 1920s). 
In addition, the numbers may indicate what style the bottle is or may be date
codes.  The longer I am involved in bottle research, the more I discover that
little details are important.  Placement of marks and placement of numbers do
matter.

        The placement of mold lines is also important.  Bill Lindsey, working
for the BLM in Oregon, is discovering more and more items that can be dated
to a reasonable period.  For example, the change from applied finishes to
tooled finishes occurs during a datable period.  The finish is the top or open
end of the bottle.  In mouth-blown bottles, it was created last * thus, the
finish.   To create an applied finish, a separate gob of glass is added to the
open end of the bottle and tooled into a shape.  These can be determined by
putting one’s little finger inside the bore or throat of the bottle and feeling
where the inside of the finish begins.  If the finish is applied, there will be an
indentation or rough spot.  The later “tooled” finish was formed from the
glass that was already a part of the bottle.  The little finger test will find the
inside smooth for the full length of the finish.  Often, you can see the joint of
the blob in an applied finish, but you can always tell with the finger test.  By
1885, all but a very few glass houses had switched to the tooled finish, so that
becomes a reasonable end date for any applied finish (although a very few
may have continued as late as 1890).

        Along with whether a bottle was made by machine (seams all the way
to the very top of the finish; “ghost” seams) or by hand (seams stop part way
up the neck), it is helpful to know if the bottle contains an Owens scar.  The
Owens scar is a distinctive mark on the base (very bottom of the bottle *
where is sits on a table) that is generally circular (occasionally oval), usually
off center, and sometimes extends over the edge of the base onto the heel.
The Owens scar is often “feathered.”

        Most of the things I have described will not individually provide us
with very refined distinctions, but combined they can tell us a lot.  The
combination of marks, numbers, and seams along with the usual descriptors
(color, bottle style, etc.) can help us to create a much smaller date range.
Given enough data over time, we in bottle research will be able to provide
more information about style, tighter date ranges, and more general
information about bottles.

Bill Lockhart

Toulouse, Julian Harrison
    1970 “The Bottle Makers of the Pacific Northwest.” Western
    Collector July/August, 32-37.

Wilson, Rex
    1981 Bottles on the Western Frontier.  University of Arizona Press,
    Tucson.

Bill Lockhart
New Mexico State University
Alamogordo, NM
(505) 439-3732