I'd have to second Dave.
In European studies, window glass has distanced itself from ceramic analysis
methods for various reasons, some of which have to do with site formation,
but what I have noticed in using e.g. British methods on historic glass in
the northeast is that post-depositional dispersal with glass is not the same
as with ceramics. In particular, expedient use of certain shapes or sizes is
common - from the 17th through the 19th c - 'flaking' the edges of bases or
case bottle shoulders to make scrapers, or using glass stems as expedient
tools, and reusing window glass as well. This scavenging or reuse is not
just by Indigenous people - I just saw some material in Québec that was from
late European contexts. Window glass fragments could have been scavenged for
a number of purposes, leaving a skewed sample behind.
I can also say from my experience of glass analysis that numbers of
fragments are meaningless because the stuff keep fragmenting and degrading
in a way that ceramic material does not; three consecutive analyses of the
same collection I have looked at produced different numbers.
Stick to the thematic (distribution for fenestration; climatic and human
post-depositional influences etc etc) and get away from processual frag
counting!!
And good luck...
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Moyer
Sent: 11 May 2011 21:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Rethinking Window Glass
Hi All,
There's a lot of behavior that can be gleaned from things as mundane as
window glass. For example, instead of lumping window glass in with the
bricks frags, nails etc. and "architectural refuse" how about classifying it
in the lighting category along side chimney glass, etc.?> fenestration is
likely corrrelated with the amounts of other lighting-related artifacts in
household deposits.
Karl Rohnke pointed out that window glass could also be reclassified as a
medicinal artifact, since bluish tints were thought to be thereputic during
the "blue glass mania." Once it fell out of fashion some this blue glass
ended up out west and sold cheap.
And then there's looking at post-abandonment processes, vandalism, rates of
repair, window salvage prior to demolition.... I guess my point is that
those big variables that make status-related statements using window glass
so risky are exactly the kinds of things we should be looking at, rather
than the classic dating formulas, etc...
my two cents,
Dave Moyer
--- On Wed, 5/11/11, Mark Branstner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Mark Branstner <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Early 19th Century window glass
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 3:58 PM Daniel,
>
> I have absolutely nothing useful to add to this discussion, but the
> general idea of quantifying window glass and correlating it with any
> status measurement seems so fraught with unknown variables that I
> can't imagine how it could possibly work, or even if it looked like it
> did, how you could possibly verify your conclusions.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> >These sites are all adjacent to one another along the
> same road, so
> >availability due to transport shouldn't have been a
> primary factor in
> >the amount of flat glass on each site. I suspect the
> most likely route
> >would have been overland via the Maysville Road and to
> the road via
> >river traffic on the Ohio, though some glass could have
> come via the
> >Kentucky River and Frankfort - there aren't many
> options for river
> >travel where the sites are located. Our first railroad,
> the Lexington
> >and Ohio, wasn't operational until 1833 and didn't
> actually go to Ohio.
> >It eventually found its way to Louisville but that
> wasn't until 1850 or
> >so and by then, my sites were pretty much abandoned.
> I've found
> >references for glass factories in Louisville, but they
> post-date site
> >abandonment as well. There were glass factories in
> mid-Ohio by the early
> >1800s, but I don't know if they produced flat glass -
> they seem mainly
> >to have been involved in bottles.
> >
> >Anybody ever compare CCI values to frequencies of
> window glass on
> >multiple historic sites?
> >
> >Daniel B. Davis
> >Archaeologist Coordinator
> >Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
> >Division of Environmental Analysis
> >200 Mero Street
> >Frankfort, KY 40622
> >(502) 564-7250
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of
> >Doms, Keith
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:30 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Early 19th Century window glass
> >
> >Cost is one factor. Also it might be a measure of
> availability due to
> >ease of transportation Viz. Improving road networks,
> regular river boat
> >traffic, canals, and early railroads
> >
> >KRD
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of
> >Davis, Daniel (KYTC)
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:40 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Early 19th Century window glass
> >
> >Good afternoon!
> >
> >Can anyone direct me toward references for early 19th
> century window
> >glass in the eastern US - that aren't for dating the
> associated
> >structures? Specifically, I'm looking for information
> on price and
> >availability and operating under the assumption that
> more window glass
> >on a site for this time period will directly associate
> with a higher
> >socioeconomic status for the site's occupants. I've got
> 4 sites in
> >central Kentucky that date from around 1790 to 1840 and
> based on the
> >excavations to date, there is significant variance in
> the amount of
> >window glass from each site. I'm guessing the window
> glass types would
> >be blown plate, crown, or cylinder glass though I don't
> think there's a
> >good way to separate the types.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >Daniel B. Davis
> >Archaeologist Coordinator
> >Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
> >Division of Environmental Analysis
> >200 Mero Street
> >Frankfort, KY 40622
> >(502) 564-7250
>
>
> --
>
> Mark C. Branstner, RPA
> Historic Archaeologist
>
> Illinois State Archaeological Survey
> Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability University of Illinois at
> Urbana-Champaign
> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
> 23 East Stadium Drive
> Champaign, IL 61820
>
> Phone: 217.244.0892
> Fax: 217.244.7458
> Cell: 517.927.4556
> [log in to unmask]
>
> "I hope that was an empty bottle, George! You can't afford to waste
> good liquor. Not on your salary, not on an associate professor's
> salary!" Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011) as 'Martha' in 'Who's Afraid of
> Virginia Woolf'
>
|
