Bunny & Lurkers,

        I agree as far as you go, but I think that artifacts in general and bottles in
particular have numerous uses for us.  One of those (with which I am most initmately
conerned at present) is their utility in dating sites and occupations.  The technical
aspects involved are generally necessary as a stage to understanding behavior.

        I see my position as a bottle researcher as a provider of tools and (hopefully)
a creator of techniques to help those of you who interests lie in the broader questions
assess you goals.  My point is that I can better provide tools (in this case, tighter
dating via manufacturer's marks and various numeric codes) if I can receive more
comprehensive data.  Each process can thus feed the other.  We need people
working at all levels and according to different paradigms.

Bill


> Bill et al:  All this is fine.  But the most important thing about
> bottles concerns their former contents -- both in terms of quantitity
> and quality -- and to what uses they were put.  It's that, rather than
> the dating and formal characteristics, that gets us to the subject of
> Homo sapiens, which was, I thought, what this exercise is supposed to
> be about.
>    Bunny
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LOCKHART BILL" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:00 AM
> Subject: Recording Bottle Data
>
>
> { 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