Telling Time for Archaeologists George L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 29 Article 2 2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists George L. Miller Patricia Samford Ellen Shlasko Andrew Madsen Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Miller, George L.; Samford, Patricia; Shlasko, Ellen; and Madsen, Andrew (2000) "Telling Time for Archaeologists," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 29 29, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol29/iss1/2 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol29/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Telling Time for Archaeologists Cover Page Footnote I would like to thank Robert H. Hunter Jr. and The hipsC tone Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for providing color photographs from their journal Ceramics in America to illustrate this article. The first issue of Ceramics in America was published during the summer of 2001. I would also like to thank Anthony J. McNichol for the glass drawings he did for this publication. I began compiling this list of dates while employed at Parks Canada and much of the information came from my former colleagues in Ottawa. This article is available in Northeast Historical Archaeology: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol29/iss1/2 Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 29, 2000 1 Telling Time for Archaeologists George L. Miller, with contributions by Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen This essay presents an accumulation of data on the dates for common types of artifacts found on archaeo logical sites from the historical period. These dates come from a variety of sources and include a mix of types of dates. These dates are based on such things as patents, pattern registrations, dates when commercial pro duction began, estimates of when production stopped, and the popularity ranges for various styles of wares based on makers' marks. The introductory essay discusses some of the problems in the sources of the dates presented. Ce texte presente une accumulation de donnees sur les dates de types d'artefacts communs trouves sur des sites archeologiques de Ia periode historique. Ces dates proviennent de diverses sources et sont de plusieurs natures. Elles se basent sur divers indicateurs tels brevets, enregistrements de modeles, dates de debut de production commerciale, estimations du moment ou a cesse Ia production et periodes de popularite de divers styles d'articles d'apres les marques des fabricants. Le texte evoque certains des problemes que posent les sources des dates presentees. Introduction Sources for Dating Artifacts Publication of Ivor Noel Hume's A Guide to Not all dates are created equal. Dates for Artifacts of Colonial America in 1970 provided artifacts used to interpret archaeological con historical archaeologists with their major texts come from a variety of sources that source for identification and dating of histor should be taken into account during the inter ical artifacts. This text became the standard pretation process. For example, consider the reference for dating 17th- and 18th-century following types of sources for artifact dates. artifacts and to some extent artifacts from the early 19th century. As such, it is the most Group 1: Dated objects cited work by historical archaeologists. In this seminal work, Noel Hume presented in clear Coins, silver touch mark dates, armorial and simple terms the importance of and use of decorated wares, presentation pieces and the concept of terminus post quem dates for dated ceramics and glass, manufacturers' date dating archaeological contexts. The latest codes such as those used by Wedgwood, made artifact in an archaeological context rep Worcester, Owens-Illinois Glass, and others resents the earliest date that the context could (FIG. 1). One obvious question is what does the have been deposited (Noel Hume 1969: 11). date represent? Is it the date the object was Unfortunately, the dating of contexts by their made, or does the date commemorate some terminus post quem artifact is an under-utilized event or relate to a presentation of the object? concept in historical archaeology. For some, the mean ceramic date seems to be the focus of Group 2: Known introduction dates analysis. Knowing the mid-date of a context Patented objects, design registrations, and not knowing if it was for an assemblage makers' marks, model years, known date of that represents ten years or 100 years seems introduction, dates of changes in technology, rather short sighted. It is hoped that the dates dates of changes in style, marks for institution provided here will help archaeologists become ally owned wares such as used by military more familiar with artifacts and their regiments, hospitals, hotels, schools, etc (FIGS. chronologies. 2-4). Many of these dates have been estab- 2 Telling Time for Archaeologists/Miller Figure 1. The base to a bottle with an Owens-Illinois Figure 3. Continuous-Thread Finish. This finish on Glass Company mark. The bottle has an Owens suc glass containers had one continuous line that over tion scar to the left and top right of the parison mold laps itself for a quick and easy opening lid. The line. This from the knife that cuts the glass off once glass industry came together to set the first stan it has been sucked up from the glass tank. Owens dards for the Continuous-Thread Finish in 1919 (Lief scars are very distinct, and sometimes are carried up 1965: 27-29). The closure became very popular and onto the heel of the container, especially on small basically replaced the cork for most containers. bottles. The Owens Automatic Bottle Blowing Drawing by Anthony J. McNichol. machine was patented in 1904. Suction scars are common on bottles made from 1903 until around 1940. Drawing by Anthony J. McNichol. • Figure 2. Lug top finish to a machine-made bottle. Figure 4. Bail and yoke "Lighting Stopper" stopper. This type of closure was almost impossible to make Lief lists this stopper as being patented in 1882, but a on mouth-blown bottles. Lug top closures were patent date on the hard rubber cork on a Lighting introduced on machine-made bottles in 1906. There stopper in Miller's collection has the date "Jan. 5, are many styles of lug top closures and they are still 1875." These closures were common on beer bottles in common use today. Drawing by Anthony J. and to a lesser extent on pop bottles until ca. 1910. McNichol. They lost their market position to the crown stopper which was patented in 1892. Drawing by Anthony J. McNichol. Northeast Historical ArchaeologyIV ol. 29, 2000 3 Tablel. Chronology for shell-edged earthenware, after Miller and Hunter1990, keyed to Figure 5. Figure Style Rim Mean beginning Mean end date date 5A,B Rococo Impressed curved lines 1784 1812 Impressed curved lines Even scalloped 1802 1832 5D Impressed straight lines Even scalloped 1809 1831 5C Impressed bud motif Even scalloped 1813 1834 5E,F Embossed patterns Patterned scalloping 1823 1835 5G,H Impressed repetitive patterns Unscalloped 1841 1857 Unmolded Unscalloped 1874 1884 D H Figure 5. Bisque fited shell-edged waster sherds from Staffordshire. The chronological information on these rim types is presented in Table 1. 4 Telling Time for Archaeologists/Miller lished from documents such as patent office beginning and end dates for the seven major records, research in city directories, published decorative types (TAB. 1; FIG. 5). histories, and other such sources. Taken at face value, the above series would suggest that shell-edged wares were not being Group 3: Dates by association produced between 1835 and 1840 and between 1858 and 1873. Throughout the 1830s, shell In most cases artifacts date the sites and edge was the most common type of plate contexts in which they are found. In some being sold in the American market. A close cases, such as shipwrecks, sites destroyed by look at Samford's data may reveal similar time catastrophic events, sites occupied for very gaps. short time periods, or activities such as mili Andrew Madsen's data are based on Chi tary battles, the site often provides better dates nese porcelain decorated with English armo for the objects found than our established arti rial designs. The British East India Company fact chronologies. In these cases, the dates are controlled the importation of Chinese porce for a period when the artifacts were in use and lain to England. Because of a dispute with the deposited and generally do not represent the London merchants who sold the Chinese beginning or end date of the artifacts recov porcelain imported by the Company, the Com ered. pany stopped importing these wares in 1791 (Godden 1980: 28). This put an end to English Group 4: Artifact dates generated by accu armorials on Chinese porcelain at a time when mulated data the American trade in Chinese porcelain was The earliest example of this for historical taking off. Thus the dates that Madsen gener archaeology is the Binford clay pipe stem for ated for the later patterns may have lasted mula dates based on the research by Pinky longer in the American market (FIGS. 6-8). Harrington (Binford 1978). Later examples Anyone using the dates and chronologies in include Stanley South's mean ceramic date for this paper should take into consideration how mula, based on data provided by Ivor Noel the dates were generated and what the limita Hume (South 1978). Others have used accu tions might be on their accuracy. mulated dates from artifacts to generate Many of the dates from the following list ranges of popularity.