Artifact Analysis
Methods
Analytical Techniques
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.

Archaeology Menu:

Get Full Report
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact Processing and Computerization Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead were processed at the AECOM archaeological laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Materials were washed, dry brushed, or separated for conservation as appropriate, and were then cataloged by material specialists. Information was entered directly into the computer database by analysts using English terms, rather than codes, and “pull down” menus to ensure standardization of terminology; new terms were added as needed. Direct input by the analysts eliminated two steps in the artifact analysis process: recording on paper forms and having a non-material specialist enter information into the database. This procedure also reduced errors in data entry, since the individuals who analyzed the data input the information. Paper reports are generated periodically so that there was always a hard copy of the inventories; additionally, AECOM maintained a daily computer back up file of all data. Analysis of artifacts followed standard practices, which conformed to the guidelines of the MHT. After washing and labeling, artifacts (excluding faunal materials) were initially inventoried in terms of material type and temporal and functional attributes (following Ivor Noël Hume, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, [1970] and Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, [1977]). More detailed analyses included glass and ceramic vessel determinations, establishment of terminus post quem (TPQ) for intact contexts, and, where appropriate, calculation of mean ceramic dates and ceramic percent contribution graphs (see “Analytical Techniques” tab). The data entry form encompassed, at a minimum, information about artifact numbers and types, forms, and decorations. Weight was also recorded for some artifacts (e.g., window glass; brick, mortar, and plaster fragments; and coal) where weight can be more significant than simple count. Further information about part present, condition, wear, etc., can also be tabulated. Additional fields were available for the description of glass and ceramic vessels and comments. Microsoft Excel is used to manipulate the data and to generate tables, charts, and graphs, as needed. The data entry form was used for both historic and prehistoric period artifacts. Information recorded for the prehistoric artifacts included identification of raw material type, method of manufacture, shape, and use-wear. Architectural materials (nails, window glass, bricks, etc.) were treated in the same manner as those from other functional groups: they were washed and labeled as appropriate, again following the MHT guidelines, and entered into the Microsoft Access inventory. Determination of types of window glass (broad or crown) and of nails (wrought, cut, or wire) can provide temporal information about periods of construction and repair of buildings and, along with distribution patterns of bricks, can identify locations of buildings and of structural elements, such as chimneys or bake ovens. Conservation The laboratory staff assessed the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the artifacts. Passive conservation measures, such as the use of proper storage bags and archival materials, were applied to the entire collection. A select group of diagnostic artifacts, including several coins and buttons, were sent to the Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum conservation laboratory for cleaning, stabilization, and preservation. Curation Artifacts from the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Phase I–III investigations were curated at MHT’s Jefferson Patterson Museum facility. The collections were all packed according to the guidelines of the MHT. Artifacts were packed using only acid-free, durable materials. An archivally stable container containing copies of field notes, forms, and maps as well as a digital copy of the artifact catalog and site photographs was provided. The artifacts may be viewed upon request by contacting the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Terminus Post Quem Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after that object was first produced. Mean Ceramic Date Mean ceramic date (MCD) is an analytical technique pioneered by Stanley South (Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 1977) to determine the average manufacture date of all temporally diagnostic ceramic types in an assemblage. The calculation uses the median manufacture date for each ceramic type, weighted by the frequency (i.e., count) of that type in the assemblage. For example, a 10-sherd assemblage consisting of 3 sherds of plain pearlware (median date 1812), 4 sherds of painted pearlware (median date 1815), and 3 sherds of shell-edge pearlware (median date 1830) would have an MCD of 1819: ((3*1812) + (4*1815) + (3*1830))/10 = 1819 While this technique is useful for establishing a mid-range for an entire deposit, it does not guarantee that a deposit specifically dates to that time. In the previous example the MCD is 1819, but based on manufacturer, design, or decoration of other artifacts in the assemblage, the TPQ for the deposit could be earlier or later. Thus the MCD technique cannot be used to the exclusion of the TPQ. This technique does, however, have the ability to compensate for potential outliers in the TPQ that might otherwise skew the dating of a context. Percent Contribution Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original MCD calculations. It is useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date. The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics (The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology, 1982). The formula used is: S/(N*D) = P Where: ﷯ 4/(10*30) = 0.0133333 or 1.3333% The P value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware type manufactured in that year. ﷯ *for purposes of illustration only; just five years of the full range of manufacture dates for all ware types (i.e., 1794–1840 in this example) are shown in the above table The cumulative percent value (as seen in “Grand Total” row) is then graphed for the range of years. For example, our 10-sherd dataset would yield the percent contribution chart shown below, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability occurs between 1820 and 1830, slightly later than our MCD of 1819. The percent contribution calculation suggests that this is the most likely depositional date range for the assemblage. ﷯ Minimum Vessel Inventory A minimum vessel inventory analysis is used to establish the number of vessels within an assemblage or minimum number of vessels (MNV). This technique diverts from the dating strategies discussed above as they rely on sherd frequency, not vessels. Knowing the number of vessels represented in a collection can help account for sample bias imposed by sherd counts. Variability of breakage or recovery can artificially inflate the importance of a ceramic group. For example, a single redware plate that broke into two sherds will statistically appear less significant in an assemblage than a single whiteware plate that broke into 30 sherds. By vesselizing it is possible to determine that only one vessel of each ware type is present, thus putting redware and whiteware on equal footing in the assemblage. Vesselization also allows for a more accurate determination of vessel form, which provides a better sense of activity areas and foodways. Each vessel is also given a “percent complete” designation, which aids in the interpretation of a deposit. More complete vessels tend to be found in deposits that were quickly covered over and not subsequently moved. Smaller portions of vessels are more likely to occur in areas with high traffic or in deposits that were moved from one place to another.