In a message dated 5/9/2000 7:15:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I must disagree with Pat Garrow's May 8 comments "Time lag works at
 times. Often it does not."  Time lag by definition will **always** be
 present in every archaeological assemblage.   The question is whether the
 amount of time lag is significant. If it is only a few months, then in
 most cases, who cares. But when it is years or decades, then I believe it
 is important to understand. Durable goods last in their usage.
 Manufacturing dates are not occupation dates. >>

Mr. Adams, I don't have time to comment on your paper at length at this
point. I found it interesting, but I wonder, really, how many people are
really guilty of not accounting for time lag? I mean, you are absolutely
right. It happens and must be accounted for. But I always assume it, and I
thought pretty much everyone did. After all, in Historical Archaeology 101 we
all learned about TPQ's--finding an 1850 coin under a wall doesn't
necessarily mean the wall was built in 1850--simply that it was built after
1850, at the earliest. I agree that mindlessly applying early dates to sites
based on the presence of an heirloom ceramic is wrong, but I would argue that
this relatively small error pales in comparison to the wholesale
misidentification of artifacts that is so common (here in the US at least).
Most people can't date ceramics or glass closely enough for time lag to
matter all that much, anyway, I'd say. Good luck though.
Pessimistically yours,
Carl Steen

PS--for more info on non-importation movements and their effects on the
ceramic industry you might look at Susan Myers' "From Handicraft to Industry"
1980, Smithsonian Press, which deals with the period you discuss or my MA
thesis from Wm. and Mary "The intercolonial trade of domestic earthenwares
and the growth of an american social identity" which deals with the period
leading up to the American Revolution.

But I might differ with you on the point of