>[log in to unmask] Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:02:18 -0400
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Finds Problem

>I think Alasdair is making a sweeping generalisation
regarding the analysis
>of bottles. The Australian historical archaeologists that I
have had the
>privilege to work and the site reports I have read all use
technomorphology >as a key component of bottle
identification. For glass bottles, the
>comprehensive work of Boow has for years provided
Australian archaeologists
>with the basic framework on manufacturing techniques.
Researchers such as
>Martin Carney and Jean Smith have repeatedly contributed in
the grey
>literature. And we anxiously await the publication of
Martin's book on the
>subject.


I'm the first to concede that rhetoric occasionally gets the
better of me -  you're quite correct in noting that in this
case, as in others, an off-hand phrase at the end of an
e-mail has carried a more sweeping meaning than was
intended.

You're quite correct in pointing out the role of Boow (1991)
as an excellent resource on Australian bottle manufacturing
technology.  And Carney (1998) has been at the forefront of
this issue, offering an excellent case study on the dangers
of an over-reliance on functional categories in bottle
analysis.  Technology and morphology are certainly
increasingly important.

But I do nonetheless think that there's occasionally an
over-reliance on functional identifications in some quarters
- even Jean Smith has been known to make function the
primary sorting category in her excellent reports (eg Smith
2002).  Not for a second am I implying that Jean's
identifications are incorrect, or questioning her expertise,
simply noting that this raises some broader issues.

At the risk of making another sweeping generalisation (and
in e-mail it's sometimes difficult to avoid), I do think
that there's an occasional tendency in Australian material
culture analysis to underplay the role of artefact
polyfunctionality, and thus to place too much emphasis on
function as a primary identification category rather than an
interpretive analytical category (as discussed in far more
detail in Chapter 5 of Brooks in press), and that this
raises potential concerns as to the implications of analysis
- as indeed discussed extensively by Carney (1998) in a
bottle context.

But I'm happy to note that this is an ongoing debate, and
opinions very much vary.

Alasdair


Citations:
BOOW, J. 1991. _Early Australian Commercial Glass:
Manufacturing Processes_, Heritage Council of New South
Wales, Sydney.

BROOKS, A. In Press. _An Archaeological Guide to British
Ceramics in Australia, 1788-1901_, Australasian Society for
Historical Archaeology, Sydney.

CARNEY, M. 1998. ‘A Cordial Factory at Parramatta, New
South Wales’. Australasian Historical Archaeology, 16:
80-93.

SMITH, J. 2002a. ‘Appendix 1: The Excavated Glass', in G.
Connah (ed.) The 2001 Excavations at Lake Innes Estate, Port
Macquarie, NSW, preliminary report to the Heritage Council
of New South Wales, pp.194-201.



      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr.  Alasdair Brooks
Material Culture Specialist / Lab Archaeologist
SHA  Newsletter Current Research Editor for Australia/NZ
 1/62 Gooch Street
Thornbury, Vic  3071
Australia
 03 9416 8484
0429 198  532
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~