Dating of clay pipe stems

[tg...@ttser.demon.co.uk]

Some years ago Lewis Binford devised a formula for dating clay pipe
stems, does anyone know of the formula? Also, does anyone know how
accurate it has proved to be?

Presumeably the formula was specifically used with pipe stems from
America - is it relevant to this side of the Atlantic, specifically
the UK?

Any help would be appreciated.

Tony Gist
tg...@ttser.demon.co.uk

[J. L. Hensley]

According to Noel Hume's"Martin's Hundred" Binford's formula is based
on the work of J.C. "Pinky" Harrington. At the same time Harrington
was developing his work on colonial U.S. sites, Adrian Oswald of the
London Guild Museum was working along similar lines from the City's
medieval ditch and from building sites across the Thames in Southwark.
Oswald's work was published in British Archaeological News Letter in
April 1951. In 1962 Binford reduced Harrington's work to a linear
regression formula

Y=1931.85 - (38.26*X)

where X= diameter of stem in 1/64 of an inch

ex.
4/64 = 4= date of 1789
7/64 = 7= date of 1664

You might want to check Oswald's work to see how true it holds for UK
samples. Sorry, but I don't have ready access to it, but I believe
they should agree closely.

Jack
hen...@usit.net

"No more things should be presumed to exist than
are absolutely necessary". -Occam

[rejo...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu]

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, J. L. Hensley wrote:
>
> April 1951. In 1962 Binford reduced Harrington's work to a linear
> regression formula
>
> Y=1931.85 - (38.26*X)
>
> where X= diameter of stem in 1/64 of an inch
>
> ex.
> 4/64 = 4= date of 1789
> 7/64 = 7= date of 1664

Binford's formula also had a couple of limitations -- first, it is not
for dating individual pipestems, but assemblages thereof. Thus X is not
the diameter of an individual bore (it's the bore [hole] diameter
that this deals with), but the mean bore diameter of a sample. In this
connection, the 38.26, the slope of the regression line, represents "the
interval of years between a mean of any one of the various metrical
categories 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9/64 of an inch." Presumably, then, this is
less reliable for mean bore diameters of less than 5/64 inch.

Second, Binford found that this formula only works well for samples
dating between A.D. 1620 and 1780.

And in addition to the usual harping on random representative samples
that Binford enjoys, he writes that this method requires constant rates
of deposition to have obtained within the units from which samples are
obtained.

Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5

[Vince Russett]

Vince here (using the system at work!)
I have had some experience of trying to date clay pipe stems by
this method, and I find that it's a little like hedge-dating from
species counts: it sort of works, but not enough to be
really useful in dating. Whenever I have tried plotting bore-size
against known makers date or date derived from bowl form, I've
found a broad correlation, but with huge numbers of exceptions.
The method could be useful for sites with little other evidence,
or used with fieldwalking finds, where dates from artefacts tend
to be pretty blurred anyway. Try contacting Marek Lewcun at Bath
Archaeological Trust (UK 01225-477756 - sorry, no e-mail yet) for
the latest evidence: Marek is the authority on clay pipes around
here.

--
North Somerset Council Environment Group
UK 0117 9875171
Doin' the business!