Allen brings up a point that completely evaded my thought process. Just as
you should review the site records in an area to be searched, examination of old
collections would reveal examples of the range of nail types expected to be
found. The identification tags, catalogs, and field notes of the archaeologists
who collected those nails should provide strong comparative information for
orienting a field project in the area. As well, the range of other
archaeologists' terms and definitions of those nails should be addressed in any
report.This should include the standard engineering definition of the artifact as well,
to sort out the different terms used by the archaeologists. While not to be
critical of earlier archaeologists' typologies, they might actually document
sub-sizes created by nail manufacturers and selected by consumers that are not
listed in books like Ching. I would expect such variation to be true for
hand-made nails, especially nails created by people of other cultures. For example,
examination of the nails recovered in the Chinese fishing camp at Ballast Point
(CA-SDI-12953) revealed a higher percentage of brads, finishing nails, and
tacks than at the nearby Anglo-European whalers' camp and I attribute this to
cultural preferences for decorating living quarters. Incidentally, CA-SDI-12953
was occupied (1860-1886) when machine-cut nails of relatively standard sizes
appeared on the market.

Finally, this discussion of nails and the need to examine older collections
reminds me of the current movement among state and local government
archaeologists in California to dump all building materials in the trash. I have an
article reviewing the debate in the up-coming Proceedings of the Society for
California Archaeology and am of the opinion that dumping collections is worse than
privy piracy.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.