"oh a cottage is always very snug" (i think i've seen sense and sensibility one too many times) "cottage" for the upper class probably isn't all that small. *goes archaeological batshit over chichester pipe industry* white ball clay pipes are part of the life-blood of chesapeake historical archaeology. two archaeologists went nucking-futz over them in the 60s and 70s and we've been forever doomed by their work. seriously, thought, you can date a site (roughly) from pipe stems. there's all sorts of weird and wacky was you can date sites, i myself have suffered through (highly amused, however) measuring the thicknesses of thousands of pot sherds from the late woodland period. let me just put on my gonna-be-a-prof soon hat: pipes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were not very wee. i have an older post of me ranting on some pbs drama about pipes with pictures of some. in the early 17th century pipe bowls were no more than 1.5 inches high and about 3/4 inch in diameter (roughly). tobacco then was much less dilluted. in the 18th century pipe bowls get larger as the bores of the stems get smaller. they can also get pretty schmanzy and you can track where they're made by the maker's marks, which is why i am totally crazy about this chichester pipe-making thing, histarchs from the chesapeake go nutz over this sort of thing. *takes off hat* i just wish i could get at the right books to go find of chichester makers marks. it's a completely futile struggle to keep my profession from interfering with hornblower stuff *shakes head* i despair, i really do.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: *weeps at the image of Bush with a wee clay pipe in his teeth*
Date: 2006-02-13 05:24 am (UTC)(i think i've seen sense and sensibility one too many times)
"cottage" for the upper class probably isn't all that small.
*goes archaeological batshit over chichester pipe industry*
white ball clay pipes are part of the life-blood of chesapeake historical archaeology. two archaeologists went nucking-futz over them in the 60s and 70s and we've been forever doomed by their work. seriously, thought, you can date a site (roughly) from pipe stems. there's all sorts of weird and wacky was you can date sites, i myself have suffered through (highly amused, however) measuring the thicknesses of thousands of pot sherds from the late woodland period.
let me just put on my gonna-be-a-prof soon hat: pipes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were not very wee. i have an older post of me ranting on some pbs drama about pipes with pictures of some. in the early 17th century pipe bowls were no more than 1.5 inches high and about 3/4 inch in diameter (roughly). tobacco then was much less dilluted. in the 18th century pipe bowls get larger as the bores of the stems get smaller. they can also get pretty schmanzy and you can track where they're made by the maker's marks, which is why i am totally crazy about this chichester pipe-making thing, histarchs from the chesapeake go nutz over this sort of thing. *takes off hat* i just wish i could get at the right books to go find of chichester makers marks.
it's a completely futile struggle to keep my profession from interfering with hornblower stuff *shakes head* i despair, i really do.