HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Brodeur, Julie" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:58:32 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
-----Original Message-----
From: Brodeur, Julie
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject <mailto:[log in to unmask]> : pipestem bore diameters

While reading Deetz and Deetz The Times of Their Lives I paused at the
passages describing how J.C. Harrington developed his method for measuring
pipe stem bore diameters. Deetz and Deetz recount that Harrington first made
his observations on bowls that had a portion of the stem visible. In our
labs it has been the tradition that we not use the bore diameters at this
juncture so close to the bowl; the rational was that it will give us an
inaccurate measurement. No one here can remember exactly who, when or why
this convention began in our labs and I've not been able to come up with any
documentation for the practice. Therefore I am turning to the list for
input. Is there a basis in the 50 year history of the development and
refinement of Harrington's method for not using the bore diameters close to
the bowl? Or are we following an erroneous convention?

Julie L Hartman-Brodeur
Staff Archaeologist
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center
(860) 396-6951   [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2