Dan Mouer is correct. Hand-built, low-fired, unglazed pottery is a broad
category, at about the same level in the hierarchy as stoneware,
earthenware, etc.  If you look at the other categories of ceramic, you
will see dozens and dozens of ceramic types.
 
In the study of colono ware, we are at about the same level as we were
thirty years ago in the other wares. I am long enough in the tooth to
remember when any grey stoneware was called Rhenish, and any refined
white earthenware was called whiteware, as long as it wasn't creamware.
The time has come for us to roll up our sleeves and get busy splitting.
 
As for ethnic origins, well, there are many, many examples of such pots
made by free Native Americans. There are other pots that could not
possibly have been made by African Americans. Other pots could have been
made by people of mixed heritage.
 
Ferguson and the other South Carolinians have done no favors by coming on
so strong with African origins. While some pockets are African-derived, I
can't buy the assertion that African origins were significant in
Virginia. Emerson's distracting African attributions of pipe motifs in
Virginia probably is a red herring or an unsupportable distraction.
 
On the whole, our problem with colono is genealogy. If we are going to
attribute the pots to any particular origin, or group of origins, we need
to show each generation in each line of descent. This can be done, by
carefully describing each assemblage in terms of method of manufacture,
design tradition, materials, and all the other attributes we use to
classify artifacts.
 
It doesn't make sense to lump such a large group of artifacts together,
and then try to attribute them all to a single source. It's time to start
splitting, not lumping.