Pipe stem dating
As a result, fragments usually show a clear taper along their length and can be quite chunky if the fragment comes from near the bowl. Some pipes were burnished during this period and many areas of the Midlands and northern England exploited local clays, where these were available. A fine sandy fabric was used in the Oxford area and pipes from areas with access to the Coal Measures often employed clays with opaque white gritty inclusions in them.
Stem stamps are only rarely found. As a result, they are generally rather cylindrical in appearance with less evidence of any stem taper. Burnishing was still used in some areas, but very rarely in the far south west, the south east and East Anglia. Local clays with inclusions were rarely used after about Stems were straight until the late eighteenth century when curved varieties were introduced.
Initials or full name marks placed across the top of the stem were most frequently employed in central southern England and the West Midlands, while decorative stem borders were most often employed in the Midlands and north. Long line name and place stamps orientated along the top of the stem were used in the North West region during the late eighteenth century.
The stems were normally thinner than previously and varied in length, with nipple type mouthpieces being used on some types after about Long stems were sometimes rather oval in cross section and could be curved. Burnishing was rarely used, although it continued to be a characteristic of pipes from the Shropshire industry and on some high quality pieces from elsewhere.
Stamped marks, now typically orientated along the stem, continued to be used in the West Midlands and North West but died out in other areas in favour of moulded marks. Moulded marks or pattern numbers on the sides of the stem were introduced around the middle of the nineteenth century and became the most widespread and common form of marking thereafter.
The most common method is to use the butt ends of a set of Imperial drill bits, although a finely gradated ruler or other measuring devices can also be used. Retaining this unit of measurement ensures that any new data is comparable with previously published material. It also allows the date of larger assemblages to be calculated using the stem bore dating formulae that have been developed in the USA.
There are also a number of concerns over how reliable any date arrived at actually is. Stem bores can, however, be used for distributional plots or as bar graphs to show changing site use over time. The divisions provided by 64ths of an inch make convenient units to express this sort of data. The fractions of an inch are always given in 64ths, and not rationalised to larger alternative units e. They were also subject to marked regional variation prior to the nineteenth century, so the shape can also be used to identify which part of the country a pipe comes from.
For this reason, it is important to look at specific local typologies as well as the more general national ones. Early pipes dating from before the English Civil War of the s tend to follow London fashions but the disruption of the war appears to have allowed regional forms to develop.
These regional fashions continued until the mid-nineteenth century when improved transport networks allowed pipes to be traded over much larger areas, diluting local fashions. There was also a move towards larger manufactories producing a wide range of different shaped pipes which do not follow the earlier typological progression and are more difficult to place into a simple type series. In broad terms there were always two different styles of pipe in contemporary use; those with heels and those with spurs.
A heel is the term used for a flat-based projection underneath the bowl of a pipe, which typically has near vertical sides, or ones that flare out towards its base. A heel is usually broader than it is deep, as opposed to a spur, which is the opposite. A spur is the term used for a projection underneath the bowl that is usually longer than it is broad.
It typically tapers to a pointed or rounded base, although later varieties sometimes have the end trimmed off. Both the other two formulas Heighton and Deagan formula produced the produced means that were significantly best mean date for the first, third, and fourth different from the hypothesized mean. This indicates the Binford at 11 years off, on average; and that the Heighton and Deagan formula is more lastly, Hanson, at 12 years fig.
The Heighton and Deagan— formula. The fourth test, from the which outliners with formula mean dates more combined, adjusted data set, also indicates than 30 years away from the hypothesized that the Heighton and Deagan formula is the means were removed, indicate that all three most accurate, with mean dates falling into the formulas improved in accuracy. Results of Test 1 for the adjusted data set, showing the average number of years the formula dates diverge from the hypothesized mean date.
For example, Test 1 from the and 4, stems in Period 4 — , and 4 combined data shows that the Heighton and features and 8, stems in Period 5 — Deagan formula produces a mean date four years The results from this data set were not closer on average to the hypothesized mean than nearly as straightforward as with those of the the Binford formula, whereas the same test on previous assessments tab. First, there were the adjusted data shows that the Heighton and not enough features in the first period to make Deagan formula means are, on average, only any meaningful comments.
Secondly, the two years closer to the hypothesized mean Heighton and Deagan formula produced the than the Binford formula. From the combined best mean dates for Periods 2 and 3, whereas data, there is a point difference between the for Periods 4 and 5 there was no clear best percentages of the Heighton and Deagan and method. This does support the suggestion that the Binford results for Test 3, compared to a once major outliers are removed the two linear point difference from the adjusted data set.
These Similar to the previous comparisons, the results suggest that, because the Heighton and results from the adjusted data grouped based Deagan method works better with outliers on sample size were not as clear in showing than the other two formulas, the curvilinear which formula was the most accurate tab.
- jordy lucas dating;
- peru singles dating;
- Spotlight On…Pipe Stems | NMSC Archeology & Museum Blog;
Unfortunately, each time period did and 3 features with 9, stems in the last not have an equal number of features and pipe 1,—5, The Heighton and Deagan formula stems. There was only 1 feature with stems produced the best results for Tests 1, 3, and 4 in Period 1 — , 4 features and for the first three categories. However, Binford stems in Period 2 — , 14 features and produced the best results for Test 2 for all four 2, stems in Period 3 — , 22 features categories. There was no clear best method for Table 6.
Results from the adjusted data split by sample size.
Results from each state. The results of Test 2 will be discussed that there were only three features included further below, in a comparison of each state. Again, the results from Test 2 For Maryland, the Heighton and Deagan suggest that when Heighton and Deagan is formula produced the most accurate results wrong it varies widely, as compared to Binford, in all four tests; the formula means were, on which tends to be more centered on the a v e r a g e , 9 y e a r s d i ff e re n t f ro m t h e hypothesized mean.
There present in the results tab. There appears was little difference between the Hanson and to be some regional variation within the Binford formula results; the differences overall trends; sites from the Chesapeake, i. Sites from were at least ten years greater than those of Virginia and Maryland have much smaller Heighton and Deagan for both Tests 1 and 2, differences between the formula mean and the and the results from Tests 2 and 3 produced hypothesized mean for Test 1 and are more much smaller percentages than the curvilinear likely to fall within the estimated time period formula.
Comparison of results by region. The results from the first two Tests 1, 2, and 4 were used tab. Overall, for tests had average dates that were all within two both regions, the Heighton and Deagan again to three years of one another. The percentages produced the best results, followed by the from Tests 3 and 4 were also too close to make Binford and then the Hanson methods; a judgment on which formula works best.
For both regions, the between Tests 1 and 2.
The average variation differences between the Hanson date and the between the formula means and hypothesized hypothesized date calculated for Test 2 were means are large, between 24 and 26 years, for statistically significant. However, Test 2 produced some of the The differences between the two regions smallest average differences. This is because are striking, with sites in the Chesapeake the formula results are widely varied in North producing much better results than in the Carolina, from as much as 82 years earlier and Carolinas.
In the Chesapeake, the results for up to 51 years later than the hypothesized Test 1 were all in the teens, whereas, for the mean. With this much variation above and Carolinas, the dates were on average between below the mean date, the post hoc pairwise 25 and 32 years from the hypothesized mean. These results in the Chesapeake. The results from Test 4 provide one example of why archaeologists were a little more ambiguous, but, for the most need to evaluate the data they are using and part, also showed that formula dating works not simply rely on statistics to provide better in the Chesapeake than in the Carolinas.
Like the Virginia results, all three There are several avenues to explore to formulas produced similar means for the first determine the reason these differences exist. In this sample, there are no sites South Carolina, like Maryland, follows the that date after the s in the Chesapeake and trend, with the Heighton and Deagan formula no site earlier than in the Carolinas. Heighton and the s were included, the differ- and Deagan had the smallest difference between ences between the two regions are reduced, hypothesized means and formula means, at 26 but the Chesapeake still produced slightly years for Test 1 and 16 years for Test 2, but the better results for Tests 1 and 2 tab.
Binford method produced very similar mean Secondly, it was hypothesized that sites in dates, with 26 years and 19 years, respectively. Results by region with only sites that date between and Results comparing Dutch and English pipes, — However, South Carolina actually had it would be nearly impossible for authors of the smallest average occupation span, 13 years; the site reports to tell Dutch and English pipes followed by Maryland, 15 years; Virginia, 27 apart.
These formula dating methods were years; and North Carolina, 32 years. Perhaps, the linear his original technique, and his sample may methods do not work as well with very tightly have included unmarked, unidentified Dutch dated sites or, conversely, perhaps the pipes Harrington There was a much curvilinear method does not work well on larger Dutch presence in the Chesapeake, even sites with long occupation spans.
The long into the early 18th century, compared to the average occupation spans from North Carolina Carolinas, and this may account for some of may also explain the issues with the Hanson the differences Pagan ; Wilcoxen ; results.
The Hanson-method results produced Edgar ; Hatfield ; Pecoraro and m e a n s t h a t w e re f a r a w a y f ro m t h e Givens ; McMillan , Based on hypothesized date for Tests 1 and 2, but were the results of this project, the formulas work most likely to fall within the given time period better in the Chesapeake; these methods origi- Test 4. These results indicate that, while Hanson nated in Virginia and may be based on sam- produced the date closest to the hypothesized ples that included unmarked, unidentified date more often, when it was wrong it was Dutch pipes.
Walker ; Oswald There were two sub-sites located on the Differences in trade patterns may also property: While the goal was to use sites with was occupied from — The histogram from with analogous results. The English pipes from the Chesapeake, dating results from the third period are very different. There were a total of measurable pipes 30 Using a sample from two sites in Maryland Dutch and 71 English for the — time and two sites in Virginia, a test similar to period fig. There were not enough marked bores, whereas the graph for the English pipes pipes with measurable bore diameters from is dipped in the middle.
The graph for the the first time period — , and data combined data is also unexpectedly skewed, were not collected for pipes made after , given that all of these marked pipes date to the thus, these comparisons could only be made turn of the 18th century fig. The Dutch There were a total of measurable pipes pipes are actually much larger and, thus, produce 64 Dutch and 70 English for the — dates much earlier than expected.
File:Fragment of clay pipe stem dating to the Post-Medieval period. (FindID 270799).jpg
This is in time period fig. The histogram shows that direct opposition to what was expected, based the Dutch pipes vary immensely in size, from on earlier studies Walker ; Oswald ; Figure 6. A comparison of Dutch and English pipe stem-bore diameters for the second time period — Histogram of the combined Dutch and English pipe stem-bore diameters for the second time period — The formula results from the English of change as English pipes. However, this does pipes are very accurate, but this accuracy not necessarily mean that pipes from the decreases for the combined data set.
Netherlands are always the culprits when The comparisons of the Dutch and English poor formula results are attained, especially pipes suggest that a truly random sample is given the high probability of Dutch pipes in needed for these formula dating methods to Chesapeake assemblages, where formula work. These results also suggest that bore dating works much better compared to the diameters of Dutch pipes have much more Carolinas, a place less likely to have Dutch variation and do not follow the same patterns pipes.
A comparison of Dutch and English pipe stem-bore diameters for the third time period — Histogram of the combined Dutch and English pipe stem-bore diameters for the third time period — The results of this study are inconclusive; sites in the Carolinas had pipes from a variety for the combined data, the dates were off by of English ports, which could explain these more than 15 years on sites that date between differences. Again, given that these methods and except for the Heighton and were developed based on pipe assemblages in Deagan test in the second time period , Virginia, it is quite likely that pipe origins although the results improved considerably could have an effect on the accuracy of the for the adjusted data set.
The outcome of this study supports the outcomes of all four tests on the combined assertion that the larger the sample size, the data set clearly demonstrate this result, better the formula results. There is a striking especially given that, for Test 2, both the difference between the results of samples with Binford and Hanson dates were statistically less than 1, stems and those with more than different than the hypothesized date. However, this result indicates that the Heighton and Deagan should not be taken to mean that formula formula is overwhelmingly the best method dating never works on small sample sizes.
For example, the Binford date is outliers are removed, there is not much of a at least two times farther away from the difference between the three formula dating hypothesized mean than the Heighton and methods. While the Heighton and Deagan Deagan date for the second period of the method continued to produce the most accurate overall data, and the second and third periods date, it was not by much.
These results suggest of the adjusted data set.
File usage on Commons
The difference that the curvilinear formula adjusts to and between the same two formula results in the accounts for the vagaries of sampling and 18th century is not more than two years apart other issues with the data set, whereas the two for both data sets. These results also Carolina. The variation seen in these results suggest that pipe-stem formula dates on sites may be due to sample biases.
He was right to worry, become clearer. The regional variation may also and archaeologists need to evaluate what these be due to differences in trade patterns between dates are used for and how they arrive at the the two areas. Specifically, the presence in the results. The complete reliance on one method, Chesapeake of pipes from the Netherlands the Binford formula, is, in and of itself, biased and lack of a significant Dutch influence in the when there have been two other methods Carolinas may account for the variation.
Although the results of this study found the Heighton Conclusions and Deagan formula to be the most accurate, all methods available——the Binford, the Hanson, Many archaeologists Walker ; Oswald the Heighton and Deagan, and even the ; Alexander ; A. Particularly, Adrian Oswald One should of researching and writing the original study not expect a formula to produce a perfect date on which this work is based.
Charlie deserves every time. Formula dating, as with all dating methods, Thank you also to those who helped me should not stand alone in the interpretation of collect the data for this study, especially David a site. It should be used in conjunction with Muraca of the George Washington Foundation; other methods and can even be used to point Sara Rivers-Cofield and Rebecca Morehouse of out previously missed factors. Its occurrence could Museum; Thomas Beaman of Wake Technical point to any number of issues that may have Community College; and Kimberly Pyszka of previously been overlooked, including factors the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and that could impact interpretation, such as Geography at Auburn University of Montgomery.
Binford also and Brad Hatch of Dovetail Cultural Resource pointed out that the formula date may Group have read and reread many versions of represent the mean date between two separate this study and have provided invaluable occupations Binford Lastly, David Mercer Formula dating has been widely used by of the Department of Statistics, Operations, and historical archaeologists since the s, and Management Science in the College of Business while there is comfort in the simplicity of a Administration at the University of Tennessee date produced by a seemingly unbiased helped with the statistics for this paper.
Century Ohio Valley Flat Glass. In The Archaeology of Wealth: Plenum Press, Urban and Historic Archaeology 1, ed. Ball and Philip J. University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Papers 4 1: North Carolina Archaeology Quarterly Belcher, Jill, and Michael G.
An Evaluation of Tobacco Pipe Stem Dating Formulas | Lauren McMillan - otecekyxir.gq
Post-Medieval Virginia 5 4: Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9 1: McMillan, and Barbara J. A Return Heath from the Grave. Heath, and Lauren K.
McMillan Davis, Thomas W. Williams, William Reassessing the Hallowes Site: Deetz, James Heighton, Robert F. Sites at Flowerdew Hundred, Virginia. American Archaeology 6 1: In Old South Carolina: University of and New Worlds, ed. South Carolina Press, Columbia. Heath Sampling in Archaeology: Paper presented at the Huey, Paul R. Dutch Material Culture at Fort Orange, — Keeler Chesapeake Bay, ed.
British Tobacco Pipes from the St. In The Archaeology of Series