DAACS staff produced a seriation-based chronology for the slave-quarter component of the Fairfield site (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). The ceramic assemblages used in the seriation were from individual stratigraphic groups (groups of contexts that field records indicate were part of a single stratigraphic layer or deposit) and from individual contexts that were not assigned to stratigraphic groups. Stratigraphic groups have a SG-prefix, which precedes the group number (e.g. SG01 equals Stratigraphic Group 1). Only assemblages with more than five ceramic sherds were included in the seriation. As of August 2006, excavation and artifact analysis for Feature 88 were not complete. The inclusion of recently excavated artifacts from this feature may affect slightly the phasing presented below. Any changes to the seriation will be posted by December 2006. The initial seriation was produced using correspondence analysis and the results were checked against mean ceramic dates and pipe-stem dates. At Fairfield, unlike the majority of DAACS sites, the chronological order derived from the CA and MCDs did not match the order from pipe-stems. We describe the discrepancy below and our solution to it.

Correspondence analysis of the ceramic assemblages suggests they fall into three groups. The first group is comprised of SG03 and SG04 from Feature 87, the largest of three subfloor pits on the site. Mean ceramic dates suggest these assemblages are the earliest. The second group is comprised of stratigraphic groups and contexts from the other two subfloor pits (Features 8 and 88) and one stratigraphic group from Feature 87 (SG05). Its MCD is about ten years later than the MCD for Group 1. Group 3 has an MCD seventeen years later than Group 2 and is comprised of a single context from Feature 74, a posthole, with an intruding animal burrow.

Evidence from pipe-stem bore diameters contradicts the chronological order implied by the MCDs for Groups 1 and 2. The pipe-stem assemblage from Feature 87 has a Binford date of 1772, while the assemblages from Features 88 and 8 have Binford dates of 1735 and 1741, respectively. This reverses the order suggested by the mean ceramic dates.

Is the MCD or pipe-stem temporal order more credible? The MCDs for Groups 1 and 2 are quite similar. In addition, the manufacturing ranges of the types used in the MCD computations for these assemblages are long. This leaves open the possibility that the mean dates are not accurate, despite large sample sizes. On the other hand, the difference in pipe-stem bore diameters is quite large. This favors the order derived from the pipe stems. We have therefore used the pipe-stem evidence in our phase assignments. The Group 1 assemblages have been assigned to Phase 2, while Group 2 assemblages have been assigned to Phase 1. The final results are summarized in table below.

The stratigraphic relationships among stratigraphic groups and unassigned contexts are summarized in the Harris Matrix for the site. Phase assignments from the seriation are shown on the Harris Matrix in color, facilitating comparison of the seriation chronology and the stratigraphic chronology of the site.

The following table presents a seriation chronology for the Fairfield Quarter site. We use the indefinite article to signify that it is not the only chronology possible, nor even the best one possible.