Rather than counting, we do a total weight of our materials - ceramic, or 
glass, or whatever, and then do estimated minimum vessel/item counts.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "paul courtney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:27 AM
Subject: Counting bits


> Hi all
>
> I spend much of my life counting bits of pottery (sherd nos, wt, minimum
> vessels and EVEs depending on site and money) etc but don't pretend
> interpreting such figures is an exact science - its often very
> intuitive. After decades of experience you tend to be aware that certain
> pottery breaks into smaller or larger pieces and note that something
> different is going on when it is say over small. However, it is useful
> to know you have 20,00 thousand sherds of North Devon gravel tempered
> sherds as opposed to 2.  As i pointed out to a client and noticed that
> the two sherds of 13th-14th century AD pot in their 8th century Radio-
> carbon dated pit were 1g (and a notional one probably) and small enough
> to go down a worm hole they needn't have panicked. What we excavate
> anyone usually has little resemblance to what was used as examining
> exceptional sites shows those that are waterlogged, calacareous, or just
> have their middens in place or in the UK looking at the very different
> material metal detectorists find to what we seen on sites. Various
> people have worked on pot/ bone comparisons eg the late Alan Vince in UK
> but mostly there is no time for such stuff in commercial archaeology.
>
> paul


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3602 - Release Date: 04/27/11 
23:34:00