Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Jun 1998 06:53:14 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Lucy Wayne wrote:
>And then there's Noel Hume's comments on
>brickyards in his Historical Archaeology: "a brick kiln or clamp is
>probably one of the most arduous to excavate and the least interesting"
>(Noel Hume 1975:174). Amen.
and Paul Courtney replied:
>Yes i agree brick clamps are pretty boring to excavate but I wonder if US
>archaeologists are making hard work for themselves by sampling and digging the
>things in excavation units rather than strip digging them with some hefty use
>of mattocks and shovels- though the odd section certainly looks pretty.
>However, the useful information is that lying on the old ground surface eg
>fuel residues, drainage features, bricks insitu and number of flues.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with Courtney and Noel Hume in this case.
While I have great respect for these two Brits, I must strongly disagree,
and with the esteemed Carl Steen. I have never seen two brick clamps that
were identical. For a while, I thought I could discern the handiwork of
individuals among several sites, but I gave up. The bricks, the clamps, and
the buildings as a complex can be a fascinating study.
Courtney is correct in the statement that the bottom layer is all that
really matters. The overburden is likely to consist mostly of
frost-fractured underfired stuff.
As for interest, I published my first brick clamp thirty years ago, and
haven't lost interest yet. If you need one dug lovingly, give me a call.
_____
___(_____) LAND ROVER
|"Baby" \ Official vehicle of the
|1969 Land\_===__ Vogon Construction Fleet!
|IIA__Rover ___|o
|_/ . \______/ . || 42
___\_/________\_/____________________________________________
Ned Heite, Camden, DE http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html
|
|
|