Professional Documents
Culture Documents
whatever else they may try to do with the ceramics is of limited value.
In a vain attempt to disprove seriation, Clyde
Dollar (1968:16) once stated that at Brigham
Youngs Nauvoo house, the ceramics strongly
indicated that the initial deposition of these
artifacts occurred almost twenty years before
Brigham Young arrived at Nauvoo and began the
construction of his house. Clearly, something is
wrong. That something is the time lag phenomenon examined here. This time lag difference
should be expected. Having the ceramics dating
earlier than most of the associated material culture is the norm, not the exception. Similarly,
in South Carolina at the Charles Towne site
(38CH1), occupied from 16701680, Stanley
South derived a mean ceramic date of 1654.4.
This difference may well reflect our present
knowledge of the ceramic types from which the
mean date is derived. It may also reflect a time
lagby the latest items not being present in the
household at Charles Towne when the first settlers arrived in 1670 [emphasis added] (South
1972:90). A 1670s site must be expected to
have ceramics made in the 1650s because the
ceramic vessels had a lifespan. A site occupied
only in the 1670s should be expected to contain
few, if any ceramics made in that decade because
it takes time for these objects to be broken and
discarded.
The study presented here argues that ceramic
tableware vessels can have a lifespan of 1520
years and longer. The length of ceramic (and
other artifact categories) lifespans will vary due
to many cultural factors like wealth, clumsiness,
life cycles, frugality, and so forth. By examining an artifact assemblage with time lag and
lifespans in mind, a better understanding can be
derived for how that assemblage came together
in a site. While a 1520 year time frame for
ceramic lifespans is emphasized, the real lifespans are not known. Far too few site reports
provide the necessary descriptions and illustrations for such a reanalysis of the data, and only
the authors interpretations remain.
Many historical archaeologists have recognized
that ceramic dates must be interpreted. For
example, Ron May found similar differences in
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
39
The knowledge of manufacture dates for artifacts is an invaluable aid in the determination
of the occupation dates for historic sites. This
is not to say that the manufacture date and the
occupation date are the same, but rather that
there is a connection between the two in that
the manufacture date provides a terminus post
quem [emphasis in original] (South 1977:202).
As South recognized, the occupation date and the
manufacture date are not the same. The problem is that a few researchers do not always heed
that observation. They make the leap from the
artifacts from this site were made in the 1830s
to the site dating to the 1830s. Not only are
these two kinds of date ranges different, they
may differ by a generation or more. A ware
is certainly not likely to disappear from use the
year it ceases to be made. Even if most owners
had ceased to buy the ware before the terminal
manufacture date the ware would continue in
use some years after that date simply because
it had a certain life expectancy (Walker 1972:
130, 134). What is the lifespan for various
artifacts?
The example Nol Hume provided involved
a transfer-printed ceramic fragment showing a
bridge built in 1832; hence, the ceramic vessel
must date after 1832 (Nol Hume 1970:11).
This fragment was found in Layer 27A beneath
a rammed earth floor in a barn and, therefore,
the layer must have been deposited some time
after 1832.
To determine how long after, we must study the artifacts from the layers above. If the artifacts overlying
the barn floor all date from the mid-19th century, it
would be reasonable to suppose that the barn ceased
to exist about that time and to assume that layer 27A
was sealed over no later than about 1860 and, indeed,
a sufficient time before it for the barn floor to be laid
and for the barn itself to be destroyed. By this simple
logic we can date the lifespan of the building within the
period 18321860 (Nol Hume 1969:69).
40
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
41
42
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
43
TABLE 1
TIME LAG AT FORT WALLA WALLA
WWCC
T1
T2/7
Glass
Ceramic
Mean Initial
Mean Initial
1890.88
1884.40
1888.38
1889.10
1883.95
1887.40
Glass
Ceramic
Mean Median
Mean Median
1903.06
1892.40
1897.87
1891.90
1898.26
1888.60
Glass
Ceramic
Mean Terminal
Mean Terminal
1914.55
1901.80
1911.36
1894.60
1912.57
1894.65
Insignia
Cartridge
Mean Date
Mean
1909.50
1903.00
1903.00
1900.00
1903.00
1898.20
Riordan 1985:113
44
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS FOR DATES FROM FORT WALLA WALLA
WWCC
T1
T2/7
Unweighted
Mean
-6.48
-10.66
-12.75
+0.72
-5.97
-16.76
+3.45
-9.66
-17.92
-0.77
-8.71
-15.81
-18.62
-15.10
-14.62
-13.90
-19.05
-15.60
-17.43
-14.87
-6.50
-6.44
-17.10
-0.72
-5.13
-11.10
-4.45
-4.74
-14.40
-3.89
-5.44
-14.20
+5.05
-7.70
+8.36
-8.40
+9.57
-8.35
+7.66
-8.15
Riordan 1985:113
TABLE 3
REASSESSMENT OF TIME LAG AT SILCOTT
Date
Material
Store
Dump 88A
Dump 88B
Weighted
Mean
Initial
Glass
Ceramic
Difference
1905.0
1889.3
15.7
1899.5
1886.0
13.5
1912.0
1886.0
26.0
1903.9
1888.1
15.8
Median
Glass
Ceramic
Difference
1911.8
1906.6
5.2
1914.8
1893.1
21.7
1901.2
1893.8
7.4
1910.1
1899.0
11.1
Terminal
Glass
Ceramic
Difference
1919.0
1914.3
4.7
1911.0
1903.5
7.5
1917.5
1901.5
16.0
1917.7
1910.7
10.0
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
(19101928), and that the site has been lumped
into a mega assemblage, the bottle distribution
would clearly be weighted toward the later period
of the sites occupation. Thus the resulting dates
would exaggerate the amount of time lag between
the bottles and ceramic vessels. Given this information, I do not see how the time lag between the
bottles and ceramics can be 20 years.
Makers marks began soon after the introduction of a separate base mold, but did not
begin to be common until the development of
the bottling machines of the 1890s. So Miller
is correct that the closer to the present time,
the greater the percentage of marked bottles.
However, the unmarked bottles were left out
from this study because it would have been
like comparing apples and oranges. The study
limits itself to makers marks. Most artifacts
from Bill Wilsons store came from a single
trash pit containing 3,395 complete (or reconstructable) artifacts, including 625 bottles and
40 ceramic vessels, deposited on top of a 1914
calendar. The store burned in 1928, and the site
was not reoccupied. Bottles probably made by
the American Bottle Company in their Streator,
Illinois, and Newark, Ohio, plants were not
included; these bottles had no base mark, but
had a side mark code like 15S4, which meant
1915 Streator machine 4. Four were recovered
from 1915, 12 from 1916, 13 from 1917, and
8 from 1918. If these and similar code-marked
bottles are added, the mean initial date of bottles
at the store increases from 1905.0 to 1908.3, and,
hence, the time lag of ceramics increases an
additional 3.3 years as well. Regarding Millers
second point, bottle production did dramatically
increase with the rise in machine production
beginning in the 1890s. Bottles became more
common and increasingly cheaper to produce.
This stimulated a positive feedback with bottle
and jar fillers and the public. However, did such
a situation stimulate Bill and Maggie Wilson to
buy more ketchup bottles or mustard jars? They
were the storekeepers and so bought at wholesale
prices anyway. Back to the main point, Miller
suggests that later bottles were disproportionately
overrepresented in the bottle assemblage analyzed
in the time lag study because more were produced and later bottles were more commonly
marked. What he suggests is that there must
have been earlier, unmarked bottles in the assemblage, so that time lag is reduced. That is not
45
46
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
47
48
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
49
50
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
manufacture dates and site occupation dates due to more
frequent use of ceramics in the home.
Ceramics were less common in the 17th century because other materials like pewter and wood
were used for tableware vessels. The industrialization of the ceramic industry in England
occurred in the mid-18th century. South implies
that poorer people will curate ceramics better than
richer people will in the 17th century because they
can less afford to replace these items. However,
he dismisses time lag in wealthier homes due to
their ability to replace their broken ceramics. This
bears further research.
Life Cycle Effect
Biologists define life cycle as
Progressive series of changes undergone by an organism
or lineal succession of organisms, from fertilization to
death, or to the death of that stage producing the
gametes that begin an identical series of changes. In
vertebrates this would simply be from union of gametes
to death of the resulting individual; but in many plants
and animals there is a succession of individuals, with
sexual or asexual reproduction connecting them, in the
entire cycle, e.g. in flukes (Abercrombie et al. 1962:
131132).
51
52
might necessitate such expenditure so as to maintain the appearance of wealth. Of perhaps more
importance was the issue of fashion. As Christopher Espenshade (2000, pers. comm.) wrote:
Ostentatious display, being modern Brits, was a major
cultural phenomenon in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. The Draytons (at Drayton Hall) did not settle
for out-of-style ceramics. They spent good money to
get the most current fashion. A review of advertisements from early newspapers will show that items were
often advertised as the newest trend and the latest
pattern. In a segment of society that placed great
value on displaying their civility, taste, and progressiveness, new ceramic styles were probably purchased
shortly after their first production, and may have been
discarded well before their functionality ceased.
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
53
Rural Effect
Although the majority of the population was
rural in the early-19th century, their economic
power as consumers was limited by the distribution system supplying country merchants.
Those merchants were not organized and had to
rely upon a hierarchy of middle persons to provide their merchandise. Country general stores
stocked limited quantities and limited varieties
of goods because, in part, most customers were
farmers who realized an income but once a
year and had to be carried on credit the rest of
the year (Clark 1944; Carson 1965; Applebaum
and Cohen 1970; Atherton 1971; Cleland 1983;
Adams and Smith 1985).
While country people may well have been
more conservative than their city brethren in
many aspects of life, when it comes to consumption of market goods how much control did
they have? This depends upon the time period
and location. In the 17th century, the wealth of
54
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
55
TABLE 4
CERAMIC TIME LAG AT VARIOUS SITES
Site
Nauvoo
Charles Towne
H.M.S. Orpheus
Silcott: Bill Wilsons Store
Silcott: Weiss Ranch Dump 88A
Silcott: Weiss Ranch Dump 88B
Fort Independence, SC
Burr House
Kings Bay Plantation: Planter
Kings Bay Plantation: Slave A
Kings Bay Plantation: Slave B
Kings Bay Plantation: Slave C
Kings Bay Plantation: Slave D
Yaughan and Curriboo
Fort Walla Walla Trench 1*
Fort Walla Walla Trench 2/7*
Fort Walla Walla Trench WWCC *
Ozark area sites
Fort Independence, A
Fort Independence, B
Ceramic Lag
20
1626
25
921*
1226*
1620*
1624
2932
none
18
15
40
23
15
411
123
1117
1525
21
18
Source
Dollar 1968:16
South 1972:90
Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh 1977:91
Bastian 1982:140141
Deetz 1977
Adams et al. 1987:164
Adams 1987a:195
Adams 1987a:195
Adams 1987a:195
Adams 1987a:195
Wheaton et al. 1983:337
Riordan 1985:102115
Riordan 1985:102115
Riordan 1985:102115
Price 1979:21
Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh 1977:92
Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh 1977:92
* includes 4.5 years for glass artifact time lag based on Riordan 1985
56
and the personal factor are both likely contributors to the apparent time lag of 24 years for the
H.M.S. Orpheus ceramics. The actual time lag
is probably greater, however, because the mean
ceramic dating formula (South 1972, 1977) incorporated time lag into the artifact time ranges
stipulated. Because the ship sank so soon after
being launched, that 24-year time lag is a minimal one; those artifacts would have been used
for many years more had the ship not sunk.
At Fort Independence, a Revolutionary War
fort in South Carolina, Beverly E. Bastian (1982:
140141) examined the artifact collection in light
of the Adams and Gaw study at Silcott. Using
the MCD, she had derived a mean median date
of 1747, an interpreted median occupation date
of 1755.4, and an historical median date of 1771.
This yielded a difference of 16 and 24 years
between the historic date and those interpretive
dates. She explained this discrepancy as being a
result of the scarcity of English ceramics available during the American Revolution. However,
a better explanation is time lag.
At a different Fort Independence in Boston,
Massachusetts, the initial dates for Structures A
and B were 1803 based on historical sources,
while the mean initial ceramic dates were 1782
and 1785, a difference of 21 and 18 years respectively (Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh 1977:92).
Short-term occupations present special difficulties in assessing time lag. Fort Watson was a
British fort in South Carolina, lasting only four
months in early 1781. Leland G. Ferguson used
Souths MCD formula on fragments to produce
a date of 1778.2. Several types of ceramics
(annular pearlware, lighter colored creamware,
feather edged, Royal patterns) found at the site
dated a decade after the fort was destroyed, if
the MCD were used. Ferguson concluded that
the site did not have a later occupation, and
that, therefore, these ceramics were in the colonies much earlier than recognized. Given that
this was a British fort, would it not have been
supplied from Britain and, hence, have then current kinds of ceramics? Ferguson recalculated
the MCD and derived a date of 1777. This is
not a time lag of only four years because the
MCD incorporated time lag to some unknown
degree. What is needed now is to re-examine
the Fort Watson material using vessel count and
the real manufacturing dates to ascertain the real
time lag for the site.
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
57
TABLE 5
TIME LAG AT KINGS BAY
Planter
Cabin A
Cabin B
Cabin C
Cabin D
Cabin
Average
Mean Initial
Mean of Means
Mean Terminal
1792.3
1817.1
1834.2
1773.2
1799.4
1819.7
1775.7
1798.6
1821.8
1751.2
1781.0
1810.7
1767.6
1792.9
1818.5
1769.2
1794.9
1818.5
Earliest Initial
Latest Terminal
1670
1900
1670
1875
1670
1875
1670
1840
1670
1850
1670
1875
Earliest Terminal
Latest Initial
1775
1834
1775
1826
1791
1815
1775
1815
1791
1815
1775
1826
Initial Historic
Midpoint Historic
Terminal Historic
1791
1821
1851
1791
1803
1815
1791
1803
1815
1791
1803
1815
1791
1803
1815
1791
1803
1815
Difference Initial
Difference Mean
Difference Terminal
+1.3
-3.9
-16.8
-17.8
-3.6
+4.7
-15.3
-4.4
+6.8
-39.8
-22.0
-4.3
-23.4
-10.1
+3.5
-24.1
-10.0
+2.7
Planter
183A
Planter
183C
Slave
183D
Sawyer
182
Planter
194A
Slave
194B
Mean Initial
Mean of Means
Mean Terminal
1785.5
1805.2
1821.3
1786.0
1809.1
1828.1
1785.6
1806.6
1836.4
1782.5
1800.3
1818.6
1793.8
1814.5
1831.3
1799.8
1820.2
1839.3
Earliest Initial
Latest Terminal
1670
1845
1670
1845
1720
1875
1775
1795
1750
1890
1756
1890
Earliest Terminal
Latest Initial
1775
1820
1775
1820
1775
1820
1815
1845
1815
1828
1815
1830
Initial Historic
Midpoint Historic
Terminal Historic
1792.8
1808.7
1823
1792.8
1808.7
1823
1792.8
1808.7
1823
1801
1803
1805
1793
1812.5
1832
1793
1812.5
1832
Difference Initial
Difference Mean
Difference Terminal
-6.5
-3.5
-1.7
-6.8
+0.4
+5.1
-7.2
-2.1
+13.4
-17.5
-3.0
+13.6
+0.8
+2.0
-0.7
+6.8
+7.5
+7.3
58
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
59
60
Summary
Objects have lifespans within any cultural
system. Objects are made, used, and discarded.
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
REFERENCES
ABERCROMBIE, M., C. J. HICKMAN, AND M. L. JOHNSON
61
ATHERTON, LEWIS E.
62
BAKER, VERNON G.
BARTOVICS, ALBERT F.
BASTIAN, BEVERLY E.
BEAUDRY, MARY
BROSE, DAVID S.
BUSCH, JANE
CARSON, GERALD C.
CLARK, THOMAS D.
CLELAND, CHARLES E.
DAVID, NICHOLAS
DEBOER, WARREN R.
DEETZ, JAMES J. F.
DOLLAR, CLYDE
DUNNELL, ROBERT C.
American
FAIRBANKS, CHARLES H.
FERGUSON, LELAND
FOSTER, GEORGE M.
GAW, LINDA P.
GODDEN, GEOFFREY A.
GRIFFITHS, DOROTHY M.
HENRY, SUSAN L.
HILL, SARAH H.
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMSDating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag
JONES, OLIVE R.
KELSO, WILLIAM
KLEIN, TERRY H.
LEEDECKER, CHARLES H.
LEHNER, LOIS
MCCRACKEN, GRANT
63
NORTH, DOUGLASS C.
PASTRON, ALLEN G.
PATTISON, E. M.
PENDERY, STEVEN R.
PITKIN, TIMOTHY
PRICE, CYNTHIA R.
RICE, F. PHILIP
RIORDAN, TIMOTHY B.
SAMFORD, PATRICIA M.
64
SCHIFFER, MICHAEL B.
SOUTH, STANLEY
TOULOUSE, JULIAN H.
WALKER, IAN C.
1999 Examining Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in NineteenthCentury New York City. Historical Archaeology, 33(1):
102117.
1983 Yaughan and Curriboo Plantations: Studies in AfroAmerican Archaeology. Report submitted to the
National Park Service, Soil Systems, Marietta, GA.