Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
As near as I can tell, the issue is that mass isn't generally typologically distinctive - it won't tell you if you are looking at a bell or a chime, and it won't tell you if you are looking at a pot c. 110 BC vs. 75 BC.
As a result, that information often doesn't make it into publication, whereas more regular measurements (height, width, depth, etc.) do. And of course, big type-studies (your "I have compiled every example of X artifact studies) don't generally record it either.
And you might think that you can reverse compute the mass from the measurements you do have, but material *thickness* is difficult to measure (lots of tricky caliper measurements at various points because thickness isn't constant), so *that* doesn't usually get published either.
None of which, to be clear, is to cast blame on the archaeologists or museum curators! They have limited time and they're trying to publish the most useful information they can. Weight is often just not that useful (until it suddenly is).
In any even, once I get off of my 1/4th-sesterius and actually push my book project through the door, it'll be including an explanation for why weight was so important to what I was doing and why we should take the time to publish it more.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
