Hi David,

About a decade ago, I published a functional analysis of 'bulk finds' recovered from one of my excavation sites in Tasmania, Australia:

Casella, E.C. 2001 Every procurable object: a functional analysis of Ross Female Factory archaeological collecction. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19: 25-38.

I roughly based the system around similar functional analysis undertaken by Adrian & Mary Praetzellis for their works in California. I think a discussion of their methods can be found as part of their on-line publication of the Oakland/Cypress Project:

http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/cypress/finalreport/index.htm

Hope these are helpful to your search.
Best,
Eleanor

***************************
Dr Eleanor Conlin Casella
Senior Lecturer in Archaeology
School of Arts, Histories & Cultures
Mansfield-Cooper Building
University of Manchester
Manchester, M13 9PL
United Kingdom

tel: +44 (0)161 275-7779

From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of PETTS D.A. [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 January 2011 21:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHA] "Small finds"

It's fascinating to hear that the small find/bulk find distinction is not widespread; it would be interesting to explore why these regional differences to finds developed. As I noted in my first email, in Romano-British studies there has traditionally been a clear distinction between 'bulk finds' (ie ceramics; animal bone) and 'small / special finds' - this is a distinction that starts in the field with 'bulk finds' being recorded just by context, whilst 'small finds' are given individual numbers and located in three dimensions within individual contexts (although much of the time very little use is made of this additional locational data in the main site reports).

Some Romanists, such as Hilary Cool are trying to move towards structuring Roman finds report by functional category rather than material. The majority of reports, however, tend to have great big bloated ceramic reports, which are seen as providing all the 'important' data about date, function etc, whilst the other material is rather tacked on at the end.

I've been thinking about this for a number of reasons- partly having reviewed a book on Romano-British pewter ware, which was a fantastic overview of all things pewter (production; use; depostion); by the end of it I knew lots more about the chronology of use of pewter jugs, but had no idea whether this was the same as the chronology of use of ceramic, copper alloy or glass jugs. I suspect that this tendency in Britain is partly due to our recording methods, partly due to a tendency for micro-specialisation and partly because 'that's how its always been done'...

David

From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology on behalf of Brooks, Alasdair M. (Dr.)
Sent: Wed 12/01/2011 20:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Small finds"

David,

The division between small and bulk finds isn't shared by our North American or Australasian colleagues, who indeed often publish catalogues which include functional categorisation across the assemblage.

There's an extensive on this for (non-British) historical archaeology. Contact me off-list if you're interested in a concise annotated bibliography.

Alasdair Brooks

________________________________________
From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of PETTS D.A. [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 January 2011 19:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "Small finds"

Quick request for help- I
'm trying to find out if anything has been written about 'small finds' -
I don't mean studies of particular artefacts, but rather the notion of
'small finds' as opposed to 'bulk finds'. For example, there is the
obvious tendency for site reports to publish finds on the basis of
material, rather than say, function. Has anybody done any work on the
historiography/genealogy of this; also has there been any practical work
on ways at profiling entire assemblages, cross-cutting the traditional
material divisions? I know some Romanists are slowly some of these
approaches, but has this issue been problematised at all in historical
archaeology?
Cheers
David

Dr David Petts
Lecturer in Archaeology
Dept. of Archaeology
Durham University
Durham
DH1 3LE

Tel: 0191 3341166
http://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/?id=5760

* For the Binchester project, see http://www.dur.ac.uk/binchester.fort/

* For the Binchester project blog, see http://binchester.blogspot.com/

* For the Centre for Roman Culture at the University of Durham, see
http://www.dur.ac.uk/roman.centre/

--------------------------
contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
-------
For email subscription options see:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
-------
Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
--------------------------
--------------------------
contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
-------
For email subscription options see:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
-------
Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
--------------------------

-------------------------- contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events in contemporary and historical archaeology, and for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group. ------- For email subscription options see: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html ------- Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates: http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk --------------------------