Long long ago,,,,it seems....when I last worked with things (still 
recovering from political Burnout).....
I was quite excited about the measurement of what I called at the time 
"essential material attribute description"
Essentially measuring artifacts in a way that procedures such as 
calculous could be done on them as opposed to shard counts which are 
only good for accounting for things....

I decided then that volume measurement and maximum and minimum lengths 
should be always calculated and included in all reports.....(of course 
part of the burn out was caused by neglect of this idea...oh well sop.)
In the course of this work I found taking volume quickly by water 
displacemnt worked well especially on non porus objects. One can use 
container with spout or graduated cylinder for larger quantitie or 
combination of both. This does not take long. to avoid liquids one can 
use fine sand.....
I also came to the conclusion that as in soil science screens of 
different sizes could be employed to size sort if one wanted some idea 
of the narrowest hole something would go through and did not want 
shortest and longest mesures.
For volume and maybe even for size I found that the means to measure 
this was already available on a conveyor belt quick system- lasers- used 
by UPS and shippers to quickly measure volume of packages
then important for loading trucks as it is for understanding relation of 
artifact to behavior

Glass like everything else plays many roles only one of which is in the 
bottle or window- I know....I have several times now had to watch for 
weeks as glass shards in the feet worked their way up- ouch!


So my friends confronted by loads of flotsom and jetsum requiring 
measurement a few quick an easy solutions. Takes time but leaving proper 
discription out renders reports less helpful in the long run.
Have fun.

Conrad Bladey
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cbladey.com

Benjamin Carter wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you all very much for your information, especially to David 
> Moyer for the extensive bibliography.
>
> You will all have to forgive me for my faux pas of calling my "window" 
> glass by the incorrect term of plate glass (Doesn't the term "window" 
> predetermine function? Are there other functions for "window" glass 
> than for windows?). Irregardless, I will use window glass from now on.
>
> I was aware of Moir's equation, etc... but it is inappropriate for 
> these contexts as they are mostly surface, the sample size not large 
> enough for statistical significance and this is a preliminary report. 
> To spend all that time measuring shards of glass would not be well 
> spent. I am happy to spend time in such an enterprise- I spent 
> thousands of hours measuring nearly 10,000 shell beads and 1000 lithic 
> drills for my dissertation. Such an expense would not be productive in 
> this case.
>
> I was hoping that there was some big change in glass technology that 
> occurred where "window" glass went from having a colored cast (aqua, 
> etc.) to being very clear. I assume that transition happened when 
> decolorizing agents were used. Bill Lindsey (on the bottle 
> identification website within the SHA website) indicates that 
> decolorizing is quite old- 15th century, but he also appears to 
> indicate that decolorizing bottles was not common until the late 19th 
> century into the 20th century. That, of course, is in reference to 
> bottles, what about window glass?
>
> Was there a point in time when decolorized glass become much more 
> prevalent?
>
> Overall, I have to admit that this is not a large issue for the 
> particular report that I am working on right now. If it was, I would 
> have spent much more time working on it myself. I sent the message to 
> Histarch in the hopes that there was a small, but important detail 
> that I was missing. Alas, I have not heard much on that point, though 
> there is likely something in Moyer's bibliography.
>
> Thanks again for all the help and if anyone has more info on 
> decolorized window glass or anything else, I'd love to hear more.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben (not Bob) Carter
>
>
> On 2/19/2010 12:51 PM, Doms, Keith wrote:
>
>> Dear Bob,
>>     I use the term plate glass for the automated, thick poured glass
>> that started to be produced in the late 19th C.  Yes, Dederot shows
>> plate glass manufacture in France in the 18th c.  But that plate glass
>> was almost solely for mirrors.  I use the term window glass is used for
>> the thinner domestically used glass regardless of its manufacture.
>>     The bluish or aqua glass is not soda glass.  Soda glass is clear
>> and typically develops a white patina after being buried or submerged.
>> The aqua color comes from iron in the sand which is used to make the
>> glass.  The more iron the greener the glass.
>>     Regarding glass thickness and dates, Grant Day (2001)claims to
>> have used it successfully in dating a different parts of a 19th C. site
>> using the regression formula of Moir (1977). "84.22x (Glass thickness in
>> mm)+ 1712.7".  I have problems with this as I have measured a number of
>> large window glass fragments from a nineteenth century site only to find
>> that the thickness varied noticeably across each fragment.  Also, I have
>> not seen background research to indicate how standardized window glass
>> thickness is at a given time period.  Even today, you can get different
>> thicknesses of window glass at hardware store.  Guess what, the thinner
>> glass is cheaper.  There is a good chance that if a window pane is
>> broken, it may not get replaced with the same thickness of glass. This
>> is one reason that some windows rattle.
>>     I do not know of any publications that indicate when clear flat
>> glass was first produced.  Remember, clear glass in the 18th C. was hard
>> to achieve and therefore more expensive and limited in use.  Clear flat
>> glass could also be from furniture and mirrors.  Today both clear and
>> aqua window glass is available.  There are photographs of English 17th
>> century windows with five or six different shades of almost clear to
>> aqua to green window panes.  (Noel-Hume 2005)
>>     If the window glass fragments are large enough you might be able
>> to find the distinctive marks indicative of crown glass or tube glass.
>> Unfortunately, both processes were in use during you site's occupation.
>>     I believe that distribution analysis is still the best and most
>> reliable analysis that can be performed on window glass
>>
>>     I don't mean to be snarky, but doesn't any teach this basic
>> artifact information any more?
>>     
>> Day, Grant
>> 2001  Window Glass Dating: When was McConnell's Homestead Built? Paper
>> presented at the 4th Annual South Central Historical Archaeological
>> Conference, Little Rock, AK
>>
>> Moir, Randall
>> 1977  Window Glass: A Stistical Perspective.  Manuscript on file,
>> Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.
>>
>>
>> Noel-Hume, Ivor
>> 2005 A Window on Williamsburg. "Something from the Cellar". Colonial
>> Williamsburg Foundation.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Benjamin Carter
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:09 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Plate Glass references
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I am having a bit of trouble finding references for the dating of plate
>> glass.
>>
>> There are, of course, far too many resources for bottle and table glass,
>>
>> but I haven't had much luck finding out any details about plate glass.
>>
>> I have mostly plate glass with a bluish cast, which I assume is soda
>> glass. But, I also have, from the same contexts, some extremely clear
>> plate glass. Why are these different? I assume that 'decolorizing'
>> agents were use for the clear glass. Is there a time when this began.
>> The site is fairly well dated- 1790s-1811. Would a change in glass types
>>
>> have happened at this time? Or, is it likely that the clear glass is
>> intrusive. Many of my contexts are fairly close to the surface.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ben Carter
>>
>>    
>
>