>>Now what would be really interesting to me is if all those mortar
analyses could be brought together on a single database, along with
details of the masonry materials in the wall around them, the geographic
location, and the approximate date of construction.<<

What would go beyond interesting to immediately useful would be this:

Comparative analysis of the same sample from more than one lab. On one 
project we had enough funding to have the same sample analyzed by three 
different outfits. We did this figuring (in our naive way) that we would 
get confirmation and be especially well assured of the results. We were 
assured by all three outfits that the current methods and standards 
would be used. We were very careful to assure that we mixed and divided 
the samples equally, etc., etc., etc. Nothing could have been further 
from the reality. All three were so widely different that the only 
conclusion and action we could come to was to toss them all out and go 
with our own usual "farmyard physics and kitchen chemistry" "seat of the 
mortar-stained pants" analysis, which in the end has always been 
entirely adequate. So, what I would like to see is a blind study of just 
how "accurate" and "consistent" mortar analysis is. Is mortar analysis 
ART or SCIENCE or something in between? Perhaps this is something like 
dendrochronology was through the mid-20th century, a practice that 
required so much interpretation that it was, essentially, an art. More 
recently apparently statistical analysis has been applied to 
dendrochronology significantly reducing the need for artistic 
interpretation making it more of a practical science. So, where are we 
with mortar analysis?

John
not a mason, I don't even know the secret handshake

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>