Perhaps commercial archeology needs to be re structured to provide 
meaningful reporting or to require it.

As far as volume measurements go 20 or so years ago I found that shipping 
companies were using lasers to scan packages on a belt and did it quickly.
Volume was more important (as trucks could hold only a set volume) than 
weight in the calculation of ability to ship.

I would assume that these days given equipment that artifacts could be 
scanned relatively rapidly and volume measurements made  quickly and 
combined with weight etc....to provide some form of standard model.

If commercial archeology is not held accountable then these new technologies 
will probably not be explored as they should.

Even with water displacement measurement of volume does not take all that 
long. Drop them in the water collect displacement drain and repeat. I guess 
artifact drying would take a bit but not all that long. Sand displacement is 
much more time consuming but some objects should not get wet.

This method by the way was discovered in the work of those who measured the 
volumes of bird eggs via water displacement.

For larger quantities I have used a graduated cylinder

for small volumes I have used a pill vial fitted with a spout two thirds the 
way up which ran into graduated cylinder with displacement.

Conrad

-----Original Message----- 
From: paul courtney
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 7:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
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